Brian Cray v. Rouge Valley Health System, 2008 HRTO 120

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brian Cray

Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Health System

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 1, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 120

Indexed as: Cray v. Rouge Valley Health System

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14^th^ Floor Toronto ON M7A 2C7 Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 Fax (416) 326-2199 / 1-866-355-6099 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Rouge Valley Health System, Respondent ) Shane Smith, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), dated July 10, 2008.

2The Application identifies the respondent as Rouge Valley Health. Based on correspondence from the respondent, the Tribunal has amended the name of the respondent to properly identify it as Rouge Valley Health System.

3The Application acknowledges that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance that is still in progress. The applicant requests that the Tribunal not defer the Application pending the completion of the grievance process because the respondent denied the grievance.

4On August 8, 2008, the Tribunal issued a “Notice of Intent to Defer” pursuant to Rule 14 of its Rules of Procedure to the parties and the applicant’s union, and invited submissions from them within 14 days of the date of the notice. As of the date of this decision only the respondent had provided submissions.

5The respondent states that there are two outstanding grievances which relate to the issues and facts raised in the Application. The respondent denied the first grievance at Step 2 of the grievance process and the union has not notified the respondent whether it will refer the grievance to arbitration. The parties have not yet met to discuss the second grievance. The respondent supports deferral of the Application.

6The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. The facts of this Application are part of grievance processes that are still in progress. The respondent’s denial of the first grievance at Step 2 does not mean that the grievance process is completed. The applicant did not identify any particular circumstance which would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach.

7In these circumstances deferral is appropriate. The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of both grievances.

8Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4). I am not seized of this matter.