HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Paul Chmurzynski Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Offender Transfer Operations) Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: November 6, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1501 Indexed as: Chmurzynski v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Paul Chmurzynski, Applicant Self-represented
Her Majesty in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Offender Transfer Operations), Respondent Christina Donszelmann, Counsel
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 September 24, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.
3The respondent consents to the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding.
4The applicant objects to deferral of the Application because he believes that the grievance proceeding will take years to be resolved.
DECISION
5In 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.
6The 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.
7It 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.
8Accordingly, 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.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of November, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair