James Woods v. H.M.S. Host, 2014 HRTO 639

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James Woods

Applicant

-and-

H.M.S. Host; Robert McKenzie and Danielle Ball

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: May 5, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 639

Indexed as: Woods v. H.M.S. Host

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

James Woods, Applicant

Vishnu Roche, Representative

H.M.S. Host; Robert McKenzie and Danielle Ball, Respondents

Katherine Pollock, Counsel

UFCW, Local 1000A, Affected Party

Patrick Groom, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

2In their Response (Form 2) the respondents requested the deferral of this Application pending the resolution of a grievance filed on behalf of the applicant by the affected party. The affected party has indicated that the grievance relates to the issues arising in this Application and is ongoing although it is not clear at what stage the grievance is.

3The applicant opposes the respondents’ request as it relates to a WSIA proceeding. He makes no particular submissions about the grievance other than to say that the union has denied the grievance.

4The 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.

5However the Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and 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).

6Accordingly where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising the same 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.

7In this case, it is apparent that the issues raised in the grievance are essentially the same as those raised in the Application. While the applicant claims that the union is not processing his grievance that does not appear to be the case. In my view it is most fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the other proceeding launched by the applicant. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process. The hearing dates scheduled in this case are cancelled.

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.

9I am not seized.