John H. Gescher

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance dealing with the same subject matter.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance.

Only the respondent filed submissions, noting that the grievance arbitration had commenced.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance arbitration process.

The applicant's union, CUPE, subsequently withdrew the grievance and requested intervenor status in the human rights proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer because there was no longer an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent generally has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee it represents.

The respondent company operated a sand and gravel mine and was ordered by a development officer under the Planning Act to stop mining on a specific parcel of land and restore it.

The respondent did not appeal the order to the Development Appeal Board but failed to restore the site.

When charged with failing to comply with the order, the respondent argued by way of defence that it had a valid non-conforming use.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to determine the merits of the administrative order in a penal proceeding, as the Planning Act provided a comprehensive appeal mechanism that the respondent failed to utilize.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.