Robbins v. Peterborough (City), 2017 HRTO 1056

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michael Robbins

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Peterborough

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Bruce Best Date: August 15, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1056 Indexed as: Robbins v. Peterborough (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michael Robbins, Applicant

Natasha Persaud, Counsel

The Corporation of the City of Peterborough, Respondent

Vince Panetta, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The respondent has asked that the Application be deferred on the basis that the facts and issues are part of a union grievance, filed by Canadian Union of Public Employee (“CUPE”), which is still in progress.

3The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. Deferral is, however, not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, the parties are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

4In this case, the issues raised in the grievance do not appear to overlap with the issues raised in the Application, and in my view deferral is not appropriate.

5The allegations in the Application are that the applicant’s disability was not accommodated in the workplace, that he was subject to a poisoned work environment, that he was held back from promotion because he had been on WSIB, and that he had been subject to reprisal.

6The basis of the grievance is that the applicant was denied short-term disability payments because he had also applied for WSIB based on a recurrence of a previous injury. In the grievance, he sought to be compensated for lost wages and benefits, and also sought an order that the employer’s denial was contrary to the collective agreement and the Code.

7Though he does refer to the above in the narrative of his Application, it appears to be only raised as part of his history with the respondent. The applicant is not making any claim for a remedy based on this particular incident, as he subsequently withdrew his WSIB claim, and apparently received the benefits in question from the respondent. The matter is apparently still being pursued by the union as a policy grievance. However, there is no indication that the outcome of that grievance will have any impact on the claims made in the Application.

8The respondent’s request to defer the Application is therefore refused.

9I note that both parties have consented to mediation. A mediation will be schedule in accordance with the Tribunal’s normal process.

10I am not seized.