Saxon v. Amherstburg Police Service Board, 2014 HRTO 921

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James Saxon

Applicant

-and-

Amherstburg Police Service Board

and Amherstburg Police Association

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: June 23, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 921

Indexed as: Saxon v. Amherstburg Police Service Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

James Saxon, Applicant

Self-represented

Amherstburg Police Service Board, Respondent

Edward Posliff, Counsel

Amherstburg Police Association, Respondent

Jeffrey Hewitt, Counsel

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether this Application should be dismissed because another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The Interim Decision also addresses whether the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of collective bargaining between the respondents.

2The Application alleges that the respondents discriminated against the applicant because of age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code"). Specifically, the applicant alleges that a provision of a collective agreement entered into by the respondents discriminates against him by denying him disability benefits when he turned 60 years old.

3In its Response the Amherstburg Police Service Board ("Board") requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that a conciliation under the Police Service Act has appropriately dealt with the Application. Alternatively, the Board requests that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of collective bargaining between it and the union representing the applicant.

REquest to dismiss

4The Board's request to dismiss is denied.

5The Tribunal has the power to dismiss an application under s. 45.1 of the Code where another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The other alleged "proceeding" in this case is a conciliation that was carried out after the applicant's union filed a grievance on his behalf. The conciliation in this case did not result in any determination of the substance of the Application. The applicant's union withdrew his grievance after the conciliation. I do not find it appropriate to dismiss this Application under s. 45.1 of the Code since the conciliation did not deal with the substance of the Application.

Request to Defer

6Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal's authority to defer consideration of an application. The Tribunal has the discretion to defer proceedings before it, and has applied this discretion where there are parallel legal proceedings between the parties.

7In my view, deferral is not appropriate in this case since there are no parallel proceedings between the parties. In my view, the fact that the Board and the union representing the applicant will commence their next round of bargaining sometime in 2014 is not a reason to defer consideration of this Application. The Application concerns the failure to pay disability benefits after the applicant turned 60 years old. There is no parallel proceeding in this case that is underway that would cause the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application.

Order

8For the reasons set out above, the Board's requests to dismiss or defer the Application are denied.