Jeanette Aubin v. Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2008 HRTO 214

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeanette Aubin Applicant

-and-

Regional Municipality of Waterloo Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: October 31, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 214 Indexed as: Aubin v. Waterloo (Regional Municipality)

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2A3 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

Regional Municipality of Waterloo, ) Carl W. Peterson, Counsel Respondent )

1This interim decision deals with the request by the respondent to defer this proceeding until the two grievance arbitrations filed on behalf of the applicant by her union have been dealt with in accordance with the collective agreement. By interim decision, Aubin v. Waterloo (Regional Municipality), 2008 HRTO 103, dated September 24, 2008, the applicant was directed to respond to the deferral request in her reply, which was to be filed by October 8, 2008. As of this date, the Tribunal has received no reply or submissions on the issue of deferral from the applicant.

2The applicant filed an Application, under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. In her Application, the applicant advises that her union, the CAW, Local 4304, (the "union") filed two grievances on her behalf which are in progress. The two grievances deal with the same subject matter as the Application.

3The respondent advises in its submissions, dated September 22, 2008, that it dealt with and denied the two grievances. Subsequent to that denial, the union referred the grievances to arbitration on July 21, 2008. As of the date of the respondent's submissions, an arbitrator had not yet been agreed upon by the parties.

4The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. However, the Tribunal must also consider, in light of particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application. In this case, the parties have not identified any circumstances that would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach.

5In these circumstances deferral is appropriate. The Tribunal orders the deferral of this Application pending the conclusion of both grievances. The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the grievances have been concluded.

6I am not seized of this matter.