HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
John Palmer
Applicant
-and-
Toronto District School Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Palmer v. Toronto District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
John Plamer, Applicant
Self-represented
Toronto District School Board, Respondent
Leola Pon, Representative
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant indicates that there are a number of grievances that have been referred to Arbitration and it appears that as of this date there have been at least two days of hearing.
2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application. The respondent filed submissions in support of deferral and indicates that there have been at least five grievances filed by the applicant. The respondent also takes the position that the Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because it was filed beyond the one-year statutory deadline.
3The applicant provides a number of reasons why the Application should not be deferred, including that he believes that the Application is proceeding too slowly.
Decision
4The 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). The Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
5Applying these principles to this case, I find that it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration proceedings. The 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.
6In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievances. It would not be constructive to have two proceedings consider concurrently the same facts as this may lead to contrary findings and decisions. Therefore, it is most fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.
7The 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.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of February, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair