HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Pavel Apanovitch
Applicant
-and-
Serta Simmons Holdings Bedding Canada Corporations
Respondent
-and-
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 8300-11
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Apanovitch v. Serta Simmons Holdings Bedding Canada Corporations
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Pavel Apanovitch, Applicant
Self-represented
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 8300-11, Intervenor
Lisa Leinveer, Student-at-law
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
2On August 11, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.
3The Intervenor advised that it is appropriate to defer the Application pending the conclusion of a grievance that it has filed on behalf of the applicant.
4The applicant objects to deferral of the Application because he does not believe that the Union will be helpful to him. However, the applicant submits that he will co-operate with the Intervenor by obtaining certain documents that it seeks.
5The respondent has filed no submissions with respect to the issue of deferral.
Decision
6In Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following comments about deferral at paras. 18-19:
Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.
Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.
7The 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.)
8In this case, the Intervenor advises that it has filed a grievance with respect to the applicant's termination from employment. 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, including the reasons for the applicant's termination from employment, as this may lead to contrary findings and decisions. Therefore, I find it is most fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application.
9Accordingly, the Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration proceeding. The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rule 14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of September, 2015.
"Signed By"
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair