Misra v. Toronto (City), 2015 HRTO 1201

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ajay Misra Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: September 10, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1201 Indexed as: Misra v. Toronto (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ajay Misra, Applicant Self-represented

City of Toronto, Respondent Darragh Meagher, Counsel

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether this Application should be re-activated or remain deferred.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent reprised against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) when it terminated his employment. By Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 76, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the Application pending the release of a decision by a grievance arbitrator with respect to a grievance filed on behalf of the applicant.

3The arbitrator has now issued her decision. However, the decision is the subject of an application for judicial review which is scheduled to be heard in November 2015.

4The applicant initially filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) asking that the Tribunal re-activate his Application but keep it in abeyance pending the outcome of the judicial review proceeding. He then filed an amended RFOP asking that the Tribunal move forward with his Application.

5In its Response to the applicant’s RFOP, the respondent seeks dismissal of the Application, among other things, under s. 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the arbitrator’s decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

decision

6I fully appreciate that the parties in this case waited a very long time for the arbitrator’s full decision on the merits of the applicant’s grievance. However, the application for judicial review in this case relates to facts and allegations which are identical to the allegations set out in the Application. If the court were to grant the application for judicial review, it might remit the case back to an arbitrator for decision. In these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to continue deferring consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the judicial review proceeding and the exhaustion of any rights of appeal. Either party may seek to re-activate the Application at the conclusion of the judicial review and/or any associated appeals. The respondent may renew its Requests to Dismiss once the Application is re-activated at the conclusion of the judicial review proceeding.

order

7The Application will remain deferred until the conclusion of the judicial review proceeding and the exhaustion of any rights of appeal.

8I am not seized of this matter.