Karanxha v. Molson Coors Canada, 2015 HRTO 732

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Eugen Karanxha Applicant

-and-

Molson Coors Canada Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: June 4, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 732 Indexed as: Karanxha v. Molson Coors Canada

1This Application filed on February 17, 2015, alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability and sexual orientation 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 a union grievance that has been completed. As a result of this, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the applicant, respondent and the applicant's former union, CUBW 325 (the "Union") on April 9, 2015. The Notice invited them to file submissions by May 11, 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's submissions provided more details of alleged incidents of discrimination and harassment by the respondent. He opposes the deferral of this Application as he believes this will deny him access to the Tribunal to voice his complaint and rights to have a safe and harassment free workplace.

4The respondent submits that the Union filed a grievance that relates to the facts and legal issues raised in this Application. The respondent indicates that the grievance is not complete. It denied the grievance and the Union referred the grievance to arbitration. It is estimated that the arbitration will be heard in the fall of 2015.

5The respondent submits that it is clear from the collective agreement between the Union and the respondent that an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to apply the Code and to award a broad range of remedies.

6The respondent submits that deferral of the Application until the arbitration is complete is the most fair, just and expeditious way of dealing with the matter and as a result, the Tribunal should order deferral. The respondent submits that a deferral order would be consistent with the Tribunal's established practice of deferring when there is an on-going grievance involving the same facts and issues.

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 a significant degree of overlap between the facts and issues in this Application and grievance. When the arbitration is held, the arbitrator will have before him or her, the allegations of discrimination and harassment. 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.

9For these reasons the Application is deferred.

10The Tribunal's Rule 14 sets out the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of another proceeding.

11I am not seized of this matter.