Harold Parris v. City of Toronto, 2014 HRTO 1104

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Harold Parris

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto

Respondent

-and-

Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: July 28, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1104

Indexed as: Parris v. Toronto (City)

1This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

2The Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer on June 19, 2014, in which it asked the parties to file written submissions on whether the Tribunal should defer the Application pending the resolution of this proceeding. The applicant opposed deferral, while both the respondent and the applicant’s union, Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416 (“Local 416”), took no position. Local 416 did, however, file a Notice of Intervention by Bargaining Agent (Form 28).

Decision and analysis

3The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (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.

4The 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. See Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42.

5In this case, the applicant’s grievance, alleging an “unfair and unjust termination,” is scheduled to go to arbitratrion on October 14, 2014. The applicant opposes deferral on the basis that in previous arbitrations his concerns have been “silenced” and he apparently anticipates the same thing to happen at the upcoming arbitration. The applicant, however, has a choice in whether to proceed with arbitration and he has made the decision to pursue the parallel routes of a grievance and an application to this Tribunal.

6Clearly the central issues in this Application will be addressed at this grievance and it would be unfair to the respondent to make it participate in two concurrent processes which might lead to conflicting factual conclusions. Given that the grievance process is now well underway, the most just, fair and expeditious route would be defer this Application pending the outcome of the grievance process

order

7The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

8The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention 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 process.