HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ahmad Jongazma Applicant
-and-
Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. and Scott Canon Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: March 24, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 415 Indexed as: Jongazma v. Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ahmad Jongazma, Applicant Ayoob Khan, Representative
Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P., Respondent Michelle D. MacGillivray, Counsel
1This is an Application filed 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.
2On November 26, 2013, the corporate respondent requested that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process. The respondent advises that there is currently a continuation date scheduled on May 8, 2014.
3On December 13, 2013, the applicant filed submissions opposing the Request to defer. The applicant takes the position that the Request to defer was filed in bad faith because he does not believe that the grievance will be resolved. Further, the applicant submits that the grievance arbitration process will not necessarily deal with the human rights allegations.
Decision
4The 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.
5The 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).
6In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and allegations covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievance. It would not be constructive to have two proceedings consider concurrently the same facts as this may lead to contrary findings and decisions. Therefore, I find it is most fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will be deferred pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.
7The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rule 14 which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an Application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of March, 2014.
"signed by"
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair