Jamie Pamela Wilson v. City of Toronto and Ivica Injic, 2015 HRTO 673

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jamie Pamela Wilson Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto and Ivica Injic Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: May 22, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 673 Indexed as: Wilson v. Toronto (City)

1This Application was filed on May 15, 2014. In her Application, the applicant alleges that she has experienced systemic gender discrimination and hostile work environment in some of the fire stations she has worked. The respondent City of Toronto Fire Services (“City”) is the applicant’s employer. The personal respondent is an employee of the City. The applicant also alleges that she has been harassed by the personal respondent and other employees of the respondent.

2The hearing of this Application is scheduled for February 22 and 23, 2016. The corporate respondent has filed a Request for an Order deferring this Application pending the resolution of the grievance that was filed by the applicant’s association on March 13, 2015.

3The corporate respondent submits that the grievance relates to the facts and legal issues raised in this Application.

4The corporate respondent submits that deferral of the Application would recognize the public interest in conserving adjudicative resources and that deferral would avoid the possibility of contradictory decisions on the same issues. The corporate respondent also submits that it would be an abuse of process to allow the Application and the grievance to proceed concurrently.

5The applicant consents to the deferral of the Application pending the resolution of the grievance.

6The personal respondent objects to the deferral. The personal respondent submits that he is not a party to the grievance so the grievance process cannot resolve the allegations against him made in this Application.

ANALYSIS

7Deferral 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.

8It would appear that there is an almost complete degree of overlap between the facts and issues in this Application and grievance. Allegations of discrimination and harassment will be considered in the grievance process. The Tribunal would engage in a similar inquiry in order to determine whether the applicant experienced discrimination and harassment in the workplace. If the two proceedings were allowed to proceed concurrently, there is a real risk of inconsistent findings on the same issues.

9The Tribunal acknowledges the concerns raised by the personal respondent. However, given the fact that the personal respondent’s alleged conduct will form part of the subject of the grievance, the potential for inconsistent findings exists with respect to the allegations made against the personal respondent in the Application and the potential findings from the grievance process.

10As well, the grievance was filed several months after this Application was filed which may mean that there could be a significant delay in re-activating this Applicant should such a request be made. I am assuming that the corporate respondent and the applicant considered this delay when they requested and consented to the request for deferral of this Application.

11For these reasons the Application is deferred.

12The hearing dates in the Application are adjourned and the requirements to deliver and file documents in the Notice of Hearing sent to the parties on April 15, 2015 are suspended.

13The Tribunal’s Rule 14 sets out the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of another proceeding.

14I am not seized of this matter.