Letourneau v. Welland (City), 2014 HRTO 1032

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Doug Letourneau

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Welland

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: July 15, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1032
Indexed as: Letourneau v. Welland (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Doug Letourneau, Applicant

Self-represented

The Corporation of the City of Welland, Respondent

Amanda Lawrence and Michael J. Kennedy, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges reprisal with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On June 13, 2014 the Tribunal delivered the Response and a Notice of Request to Defer the Application (“request to defer”) to the applicant.

3The respondent asks the Tribunal to:

defer considering the Application on the basis that there is an ongoing proceeding before another decision-maker which raises some or all of the facts and issues raised in this Application.

4The respondent asks that the Application be deferred because it is conducting an internal investigation which commenced in December 2013 after the applicant filed a City of Welland Complaint Form making allegations founded on the same facts, issues and documents as this Application. It alleges that the applicant and his Union have been involved in the internal investigation.

5The applicant responded by e-mail on June 13 and 26, 2014, asking that the Application not be deferred, alleging that the respondent is not working with his Union to resolve this matter.

analysis and decision

6The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The Tribunal must 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.

7Deferral 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. However, deferral is not automatic where the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. The Tribunal must also consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding.

8I have reviewed the submissions of the parties and find it is not appropriate to defer this Application. The respondent’s internal investigation is not an independent decision-making process which could potentially lead to inconsistent findings of fact or law. In addition, the applicant has alleged that the respondent is not working with his Union to assist him in resolving his complaints. In this case, deferral does not appear to be the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding, given that it appears that despite an internal investigation beginning in December 2013, it has not concluded. Combined with the applicant’s allegation that the respondent is not working with his Union at this stage, it does not appear to be fair, just or expeditious to defer an Application to an internal investigation that appears to be proceeding slowly, if at all. Therefore, it is fair, just and expeditious for the Tribunal to proceed with the Application.

Order

9The respondent’s Request to Defer is denied. The Application will be scheduled for mediation.

10If the matter is not resolved at the mediation, the respondent may renew its request with respect to dismissal of certain allegations as untimely.