George v. Access Housing Connections Inc., 2014 HRTO 1547

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stephan George

Applicant

-and-

Access Housing Connections Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: October 17, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1547
Indexed as: George v. Access Housing Connections Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Stephan George, Applicant
Self-represented

Access Housing Connections Inc., Respondent
Suzanne Nigra, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant is a member of a union and his union has filed a series of grievances that deal with the same subject matter as this Application. This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is deferring consideration of the Application until those grievances are resolved.

2The respondent is a subsidiary organisation of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation. It administers the waiting lists for the social housing units owned by the parent organisation. The applicant works for the respondent as a Resource Center Facilitator. The respondent's resource centers are open to members of the public who are seeking information about social housing, are trying to get on waiting lists and are in need of other social service supports and referrals. Many of the resource center clients face difficult social circumstances, including homelessness and mental illness.

3This Application arises out of events on May 9, 2014, where the applicant felt that it was unsafe for him to go on to the floor of the resource center despite being directed to do so by his supervisor. He alleges that his race and sex were factors in the respondent's decision to pressure him to work in an unsafe situation. The applicant refused to work. The respondent conducted an internal investigation into the incident and the Ministry of Labour also investigated the incident.

4The applicant filed four grievances in relation to the incident. The grievances allege that the respondent failed to maintain a harassment- and discrimination-free workplace, that the applicant was subjected to a reprisal contrary to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, for having refused unsafe work, that he was unjustly reprimanded, that the respondent breached the Code and that the applicant was subjected to a reprisal for having exercised his rights under the collective agreement.

5The respondent has requested that the Application be dismissed on various grounds and has also requested that it be deferred until the grievances are resolved. The applicant's position on deferral is that the Application should not be deferred because the respondent has not shown that the grievances deal with the same subject matter as the Application. The applicant appears to suggest that the grievances are about something other than the May 9, 2014 incident. He also says that the remedy sought in this Application is different, in that he is not seeking compensation in any of the grievances, whereas he is seeking compensation in the Application.

6In relation to the first argument, it seems to me that the applicant is as well placed as anyone to say what the grievances are about if they do not in fact relate to the same issues as are raised in this Application. However, he does not explain what else the grievances are about. The pleadings on both sides focus on the events of May 9, 2014, and I conclude from this that it is more likely than not that they are the subject matter of the four grievances.

7If the applicant really can show that the grievances are about events other than the May 9, 2014 incident, then it is open to him to bring that information forward and to request reactivation of the Application in accordance with the procedure referred to below.

8In relation to the remedy sought, the grievances all request compensation for losses sustained, but without specifying an amount. Whether or not compensation is sought through the grievance process, there is a risk here of conflicting factual determinations arising in the two proceedings if they advance in parallel.

9If the grievances proceed to arbitration, then an arbitrator will be able to determine if there has been any Code violation, as well as any breach of the collective agreement (see: Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).

10Where there is a pending grievance and there is an overlap of facts and issues between the pending grievance and the Application before the Tribunal, the normal practice of the Tribunal is to defer considering the Application. It does so in order to avoid the risk of conflicting determinations in two proceedings in relation to the same set of facts and issues.

11In this case there is a significant overlap of facts and issues, the grievances are proceeding through the process prescribed by the collective agreement and I see no reason to depart from the Tribunal's normal practice. I determine that it is appropriate to defer consideration of this Application until the grievances are resolved.

12Having made this determination, it is not necessary to deal with the outstanding requests made by the respondent regarding dismissal at this time.

order

13The Application is deferred until the grievances are resolved. The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which explain how a party may seek to bring the Application back on after the conclusion of the grievance procedure.