Ajay Misra v. City of Toronto, 2015 HRTO 76

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ajay Misra

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: January 20, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 76

Indexed as: Misra v. Toronto (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ajay Misra, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine next steps in this Application.

2The applicant alleges that the respondent reprised against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), when it terminated his employment. In his Application, the applicant claims that he was reprised against by being terminated for being a union steward. In addition to filing this Application, the applicant’s union filed a grievance on his behalf.

3On August 11, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) in which it noted that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because:

a. it was filed more than a year after the last incident of reprisal or discrimination;

b. a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code; and

c. the applicant failed to explain how the respondent’s behaviour related to any of the following: claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code.

4The applicant was asked to provide submissions in response to the issues identified above.

5In his submissions in response to the NOID, the applicant made submissions as to why his Application should not be dismissed. He also submitted that the Application should be deferred pending the decision of the arbitrator who has been assigned to hear and decide his grievance. It appears that the hearing of the grievance has concluded and that the arbitrator has issued a bottom line decision granting the grievance and reinstating the grievor into employment without compensation but with no loss of seniority. The arbitrator also exercised her discretion under s. 48(9)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, Sched. A to extend the time for rendering her decision.

decision

6The 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 seeks 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. The Tribunal will generally defer an Application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

7The issues raised in the Application are the very same issues relating to the applicant’s termination that are raised in the grievance. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to defer consideration of this Application until the arbitrator issues her decision with full reasons in relation to the applicant’s grievance. Once the arbitrator’s decision with full reasons is rendered, either party may request a re-activation of this Application. If and when a request to re-activate is filed, the Tribunal will determine appropriate next steps in regards to the Application.

8The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the grievance proceedings. The parties should note that a request to re-activate the Application must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of the arbitrator’s decision with full reasons in this case. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca under “Law, Rules and Policies”.

9I am not seized of this matter.