Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Karen Egesi Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Premier and Gordon Nowlan Respondents
-and-
Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario Affected Party
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: November 30, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1591 Indexed as: Egesi v. Ontario (Premier)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Karen Egesi, Applicant Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Premier and Gordon Nowlan, Respondent Peter Dailleboust, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
2On September 20, 2017 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer ("NOID") this Application pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration proceeding which is currently underway.
3On October 20, 2017 the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding ("Request") seeking the deferral of the Application.
4The applicant opposes deferral. In her submissions received on October 20, 2017 the applicant made a general request for more time to retain counsel for this case. The applicant also went on to make detailed submissions opposing deferral and has had no further contact with the Tribunal. In the circumstances it appears appropriate to deal with this issue based on the materials filed to date.
5The affected party took no position on the NOID or the Request.
6The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is 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.
7However the Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on some or all of the same facts and issues. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that grievance arbitrators have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).
8In any case where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising all or some of the same issues before a decision-making body with the authority to make determinations about those issues, the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the other proceeding. In such a scenario, the Tribunal's normal approach is to defer to the other proceeding.
9In this case it appears that the issues raised in the grievance arbitration are largely the same as those raised to the Application. The applicant appears to agree but makes a number of submissions about the conduct of the respondents at the arbitration hearing. These issues are not material to this determination and in any case are best dealt with in the arbitration proceeding.
10In my view it appropriate to defer this Application – one of the important reasons to defer being to avoid different conclusions about the facts in two or more concurrent proceedings and the fact is that the potential for differing conclusions on the same issues is present here.
11The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process. The other issues raised by the parties may be addressed in the event that the Application is reactivated.
12The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process. The other matters raised by the respondent and the affected party will be dealt with by the Tribunal if the Application is brought back on.
13I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 30^th^ day of November, 2017.
"Signed by"
_______________________________________
David Muir Vice-chair