HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Terry Peel Applicant
-and-
CS Wind Canada Inc. Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Date: February 2, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 153
Indexed as: Peel v. CS Wind Canada Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Terry Peel, Applicant Shawn Weston, Representative
CS Wind Canada Inc. Respondent Michael Wills, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Particulars of the allegations in the Application include, failing to accommodate the applicant’s disability, and ultimate termination from employment due to disability-related absences.
2The respondent has filed a Response in which it seeks the deferral of the Application. The respondent asserts that the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and reinforcing Iron Workers, local 721 (the “Union”), which is not the applicant’s bargaining agent, has filed an Unfair Labour Practice with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “OLRB”), in which it asserts that the applicant’s termination from employment was contrary to the Labour Relations Act, 1996. I am satisfied that the Union has been made aware of this proceeding.
3The applicant asserts that the Application should not be deferred because the OLRB Application does not seek similar remedies, nor does it raise issues of a breach of the Code. Further, the applicant takes the position that he has no control over the OLRB application and when it will be heard and that he did not choose to pursue the OLRB proceeding.
4For the following reasons, I am of the view that it is appropriate to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the unfair labour application at the OLRB.
5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of a party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an Application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The Tribunal will generally defer an Application where there are ongoing proceedings before the OLRB based on the same facts and issues. However, the Tribunal must also consider whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
6The issue of the applicant’s termination from employment, including the respondent’s motive is currently before the OLRB. The facts raised in this Application and the OLRB application are almost identical as they relate to the applicant’s termination from employment. Since the issues in the Application and the proceedings before the OLRB overlap significantly, proceeding with the Application at the Tribunal could very well lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the Application and the proceedings before the OLRB. The primary purpose of deferring an Application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. I find that, in all of the circumstances, deferring the Application is appropriate.
7The Tribunal orders that the Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the OLRB.
8The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the proceedings before the OLRB. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of February, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair