Mark Lalonde v. Mike Witherall Mechanical Ltd., 2013 HRTO 343

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mark Lalonde

Applicant

-and-

Mike Witherall Mechanical Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: February 28, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 343

Indexed as: Lalonde v. Mike Witherall Mechanical Ltd.

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 discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s request in his Application that the Tribunal defer the Application pending the completion of an ongoing grievance.

2The applicant indicates in his Application that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance filed by UA Local 787 (“the union”) on behalf of the applicant. The applicant did not enclose a copy of the grievance with the Application, and states that he does not have one.

3On January 16, 2013, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the parties, attaching the Application and indicating that the Tribunal had determined that it might be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The Tribunal directed the parties to deliver and file any written submissions which they wished to make in respect of the deferral issue by February 15, 2013, and directed the employer and/or the union to provide a copy of the grievance.

4The Tribunal has not received anything from the respondent or from the union.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of a party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an Application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The Tribunal must consider whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application; however, the Tribunal will generally defer applications pending the completion of grievance and arbitration proceedings under a collective agreement that raise the same issues as those in the Application: Melville v. Toronto (City), 2012 HRTO 22. Labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Code and the Tribunal’s approach to deferral avoids the duplication of proceedings.

6I find that, in the circumstances of no objection from the respondent, deferring the Application to the completion of the grievance proceeding is appropriate.

7The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be reactivated before the Tribunal, following the conclusion of the grievance proceedings. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca.

8I am not seized.