Alvaro v. District School Board Ontario North East, 2015 HRTO 668

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nerea Alvaro

Applicant

-and-

District School Board Ontario North East (DSB ONE)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: May 22, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 668

Indexed as: Alvaro v. District School Board Ontario North East

1This Application filed on December 9, 2014 alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Application indicated that the facts alleged in this Application form part of two union grievances. One grievance filed in 2011 has been completed. Another grievance filed in September 2014 is proceeding. As a result of the 2014 grievance, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the applicant, respondent and the applicant’s union, Ontario Secondary School Teacher’s Federation (the “Union”) on March 12, 2015. The Notice invited them to file submissions by April 13, 2015 as to why the Application should or should not be deferred. The applicant and the respondent have filed submissions. The union did not.

3The applicant opposes deferral. She submits that the grievance filed in September 2014 only addresses het allegation of improper hiring practices. She submits that the Application alleges a number of other Code violations by the respondent in terms of treatment over the past few years, and that these allegations are not the subject of the grievance.

4The respondent and the Union did not provide any submissions on why the Application should or should not be deferred.

ANALYSIS

5Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, avoiding the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. In considering whether to defer an application, the Tribunal will look at 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 to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

6The Application raises a number allegations of discrimination, harassment and the creation of a poisoned work environment allegedly experienced by the applicant as an employee of the respondent, some of which appear to be outside of the one-year time limit for filing an Application. The Application also raises an allegation that the applicant experienced discrimination through the respondent’s hiring practices, which is the subject of the September 2014 grievance.

7The issue of the alleged discrimination in the respondent’s hiring practices is the subject of both this Application and the grievance. In addition, it would appear that the issues of the alleged harassment and poisoned work environment may also be reviewed in the grievance process. Many of the same people will be required to provide evidence relating to alleged incidents of discrimination in both these proceedings. It would therefore appear that if the two proceedings were allowed to proceed concurrently, there is a real risk of inconsistent findings on the same issues.

8For these reasons the Application is deferred.

9The Tribunal’s Rule 14 sets out the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of another proceeding.

10I am not seized of this matter.