Michael Larson v. Toronto Emergency Medical Services, 2014 HRTO 266

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michael Larson Applicant

-and-

Toronto Emergency Medical Services Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: February 27, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 266 Indexed as: Larson v. Toronto Emergency Medical Services

1This is an Application filed on October 31, 2013 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

2The applicant indicated in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance proceeding that is still in progress.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer. The Tribunal noted that there appears to be an ongoing related proceeding and asked the parties to make submissions about whether the Application should be deferred until the grievance procedure is completed.

4The applicant did not make submissions. Submissions were received from the respondent confirming that there is an ongoing grievance proceeding that involves the same issues as the Application. The respondent is in favour of deferral on that basis. The Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416 filed a submission confirming that the grievance is ongoing. The union took no position on whether the Application should be deferred, but asked that it be recognized as an intervenor if the Tribunal does deal with the Application.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1).

6Where 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. For this reason, the Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues.

7In this case, it appears that there is overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievance. The 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. The Union’s Request to Intervene will be dealt with by the Tribunal if the Application is brought back on.