Barnard v. Stelco Inc., 2017 HRTO 1702

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bruce Barnard

Applicant

-and-

Stelco Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Bruce Best

Date: December 22, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1702

Indexed as: Barnard v. Stelco Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Bruce Barnard, Applicant

Self-represented

Stelco Inc. (Formerly US Steel Canada Stelco Inc.), Respondent

Patty G. Murray, Counsel

1This Application was filed on December 9, 2016. It was deferred on May 19, 2017 by Interim Decision 2017 HRTO 560 as the proceedings were stayed pursuant to an order of the Superior Court in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (“CCAA”).

2The respondent has indicated that the name of the company has now changed from US Steel Canada Stelco Inc. to Stelco Inc. The style of cause is amended accordingly.

3The Tribunal sought submissions from the parties on the status of the stay, and, if the stay was lifted, whether the matter should continue to be deferred pending the resolution of a grievance filed on the applicant’s behalf by his union, United Steelworkers Local 8782 (the “union”). The respondent advised that the stay was no longer in effect as of June 30, 2017, and that it and the union had agreed to administer the outstanding grievances in an expedited manner. The respondent indicated that it is first exploring settlement through the grievance process, and anticipates any grievances not settled will be scheduled for arbitration within six months.

4The applicant opposed deferral, given the ongoing delays that had resulted primarily from the CCAA proceedings.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

6However, the Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. 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).

7Where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising the same human rights 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.

8In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievance. The matter is still live and the grievance process, now that the CCAA stay has been lifted, is apparently proceeding in an expedited fashion. It appears that the issues raised in the Application will be addressed more quickly through the grievance process than they would be through the Tribunal. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to continue to defer the Application.

9If the applicant believes, on conclusion of the grievance process, that his human rights issues have not been appropriately addressed, he may ask to have his Application brought back on before the Tribunal.

10The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process. Where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Forms can be found on its website at www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/.

11I am not seized.