Betts v. Byerley, 2015 HRTO 1639

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stacey Betts Applicant

-and-

Michael Byerley and Clinton Czapla Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: December 2, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1639 Indexed as: Betts v. Byerley

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Stacey Betts, Applicant Self-represented

Michael Byerley, Respondent Hugh Dyer, Counsel

Clinton Czapla, Respondent Self-represented

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether consideration of this Application should be deferred pending the resolution of grievances filed on behalf of the applicant.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondents discriminated against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. Among other things, she alleged that she was harassed by the individual respondent Clinton Czapla and reprised against by the individual respondent Michael Byerley. The applicant’s allegations commence in October 2014 and continue until July 2015.

3In addition to filing her Application, the applicant filed two grievances. The first grievance was filed on February 25, 2015 in relation to a denial of a vacation request. The second grievance was filed on April 30, 2015 in relation to an allegation of unjust discipline. These grievances overlap with some of the allegations in the Application.

4The respondents have asked the Tribunal to defer the Application as a result of the grievances. The applicant opposes deferral.

Decision

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). Deferral of an Application is granted for a specific reason - 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.

6The Tribunal regularly defers consideration of applications where there is an ongoing parallel grievance filed on behalf of an applicant which raises substantially the same facts and issues as the application. However, this is only the case if the grievance is active and ongoing. It is only in such cases that there is a risk of proceedings running concurrently with the attendant risk of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

7In this case, there is no indication as to whether the grievances are ongoing. It appears from the information contained in Mr. Byerley’s Response that they are not ongoing. There is certainly no indication if, or when, they will ever proceed to arbitration. In these circumstances, I do not find it appropriate to defer consideration of this Application.

ORDER

8For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal will not defer consideration of this Application. This determination is made without prejudice to a party’s right to request deferral in the future if the status of the applicant’s grievances changes.

9I am not seized of this matter.