minicounsel

Bonnie Henderson v. Canadian Blood Services, 2008 HRTO 455 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

December 31, 2008

Bonnie Henderson v. Canadian Blood Services, 2008 HRTO 455

Case Summary

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the determination of a union grievance filed by OPSEU, which allegedly arose from the same facts. The Tribunal noted its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts, but required submissions from the applicant before making a determination. The applicant was directed to provide written submissions on the deferral request.

B E T W E E N:

Bonnie Henderson

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Blood Services, Joanna Jarmasz, Susan McGrath and Ron Huttman

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: December 31, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 455 Indexed as: Henderson v. Canadian Blood Services

1This is an Application, filed on September 16, 2008, under s. 34 of the Human Rigths Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2In their Response, filed on November 18, 2008, the respondents, Canadian Blood Services, Joanna Jarmasz and Susan McGrath, seek to defer this Application pending the determination of the grievance filed by the applicant’s union, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 5103 (“OPSEU”). The respondents take the position that the grievance arises out of the same facts as this Application.

3The 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. Before making such a determination, the Tribunal will give the parties an opportunity to make submissions on this issue.

4Although, in her Reply the applicant responded to many of the matters raised in the Response, she did not address the request to defer her Application. Accordingly, she is directed to deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal written submissions on the respondents’ request for deferral by January 16, 2009.

5OPSEU has written to the Tribunal to advise that, while it does not represent the applicant with respect to this Application, it is an interested party and requests that the Tribunal provide it with notice of the proceedings on an ongoing basis. Without deciding whether OPSEU is entitled to notice on an ongoing basis, it is appropriate to provide a copy of this Interim Decision to OPSEU’s representative as it may have an interest in this issue.

6I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 31^st day of December, 2008.

“Signed by”_________________

Naomi Overend Vice-Chair