Snow v. Ontario (Transportation), 2013 HRTO 588

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rodney Snow Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: April 10, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 588 Indexed as: Snow v. Ontario (Transportation)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rodney Snow, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation, Respondent Roslyn Baichoo, Counsel

background

1This Interim Decision deals with whether this Application should be deferred until an outstanding grievance proceeding is resolved.

2The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. He alleges that the respondent revoked its earlier decision to accommodate his disability and then terminated his employment, even though substantially similar work is still available with the respondent.

3The respondent requests that the Application be deferred because the applicant has filed a grievance that is based on the same facts and issues as this Application. The grievance is at stage two of the proceedings and the union has agreed to a request from the respondent for a two-week extension of those proceedings to enable it to investigate certain issues.

4The applicant submits that the Application should not be deferred because delay will have an adverse impact on his health. How and why it will affect his health is not specified.

deferral

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

6The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that grievance arbitrators have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).

7Where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising the same human rights issues before a decision-making body with the authority to make determinations about those issues, the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the other proceeding. In such a scenario, the Tribunal’s normal approach is to defer to the other proceeding.

8Based on my review of the Application and the respondent’s submissions, I am satisfied that the facts and issues that are the subject matter of this Application are the same as those that form the basis of the grievance. Although the grievance proceedings are at an early stage and have been delayed, the delay is for a brief period and the grievance is moving forward. The applicant has not put forward compelling reasons to depart from the Tribunal’s normal approach of deferral.

9As there is a significant overlap in the facts and issues in both proceedings, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to defer consideration of this Application until the grievance proceedings have been resolved.

order

10The Application will be deferred pending the completion of the grievance proceedings.

11The parties’ attention is directed to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.