Rajdeep Chauhan v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, 2015 HRTO 884

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rajdeep Chauhan

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: July 3, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 884

Indexed as: Chauhan v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rajdeep Chauhan, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, Respondent

Roslyn Baichoo, Counsel

AMAPCEO, Affected Party

Kelly Doctor, Counsel

1This Application, filed on March 12, 2015, alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On April 30, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer after identifying that there is a union grievance dealing with the subject matter of the Application.

3The Notice invited the parties to make submissions on deferral pending the outcome of the union grievance.

4The applicant opposes the deferral. The allegations in this Application relate to unfair treatment he has experienced in his current job because of his age. It arises out of incidents that occurred from December 2013 to April 2015. By contrast, the union grievance (classification grievance) does not address any allegations of breaches of the Code and is focussed on his job reclassification. It seeks wage compensation and pension adjustments for the period from November 2011 to October 2013.

5The applicant’s union, the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO), also provided submissions. It confirms that the classification grievance does not allege any Code breaches and AMAPCEO has not filed any grievances on behalf of the applicant which allege a breach of the Code. AMAPCEO takes no position on whether the Application should be deferred.

6The respondent submits that the Application is in essence a classification dispute because the applicant has framed his complaint and remedy in terms of loss of pay due to the classification error. The AMAPCEO Central Employee Relations Committee (ACERC) is a specialized body with expertise in classification disputes and that body should decide the applicant’s classification dispute. The respondent submits that the Application should be deferred because allowing the Application to proceed could lead to contradictory results. The respondent agrees that the allegations contained in the Application all post-date the classification dispute and that there are no allegations of human rights infringements in the classification dispute.

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.

8All parties and AMAPCEO agree that there are no allegations of Code breaches in the classification grievance. The Code-related allegations contained in the Application all post-date the job classification dispute. Although the remedies sought in the Application include calculations of wage differences between the job classification the applicant was placed in and the classification he states that he should have been placed in, there are no allegations that the respondent breached the Code in the process of the job classifications.

9I find that there is no overlap between the facts and issues covered by the classification grievance and those of this Application. There is no risk that there will be inconsistent findings of fact and law between ACERC and the Tribunal.

ORDER

10The Application is not deferred.

11The respondent shall file a full Response within 35 days of the date of this decision.

12I am not seized of this matter.