D.C. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2013 HRTO 229

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

D.C. Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: February 7, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 229 Indexed as: D.C. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal (the “reprisal Application”). There is a related Application against the same respondent which alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability (“discrimination Application”).

2The discrimination Application was deferred pending the outcome of other proceedings dealing with the same subject-matter including an outstanding grievance (2012 HRTO 1608). Those proceedings are still ongoing. Because of the linkage between the discrimination Application and the reprisal Application, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer (“NOID”) the reprisal Application on October 29, 2012 to the parties and the applicant’s union, Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1328 (“CUPE”), which has been identified as an affected party.

3As was the case with the first NOID, the applicant did not file submissions on the proposed deferral of the reprisal Application. The respondent filed submissions supporting the deferral. The affected party takes no position on the issue.

4Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the request of a party, defer consideration of an application after providing notice of its intention to do so to all parties and giving them an opportunity to make submissions. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law (See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, 2008 HRTO 404). The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

5In this case I am satisfied that it would be fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

6The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which a party may seek to bring the Application back on after the conclusion of the grievance process

7I am not seized.