Angela St. Micheal v. London District Catholic School Board, 2009 HRTO 1311

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela St. Micheal

Applicant

-and-

London District Catholic School Board, Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, Diana Van Bommel, Ed DeDecker, John Shoemaker, and Perry Caskanette

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: August 25, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1311

Indexed as: St. Micheal v. London District Catholic School Board

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the issue of whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on March 19, 2009, which alleges that the respondents harassed and discriminated against her and subjected her to reprisal with respect to employment. The respondents filed Responses on June 30, 2009, which deny the allegations of harassment, discrimination and reprisal. The applicant filed a Reply on August 4, 2009.

3All the parties acknowledge that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance that is still in progress. The London District Catholic School Board and the individual respondents request that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application. In her Reply, the applicant states that she has no objection to deferral, as long as there is a quick resolution of her grievance. The Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association did not request deferral, but did not provide any specific reasons why deferral is not appropriate.

4Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that it may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

5In my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. The facts and issues raised in the grievance are largely the same as those raised in the Application to the Tribunal, and the labour arbitrator has the authority to interpret and apply the Code to address any allegations of harassment, discrimination and reprisal. Furthermore, the grievance process is still in progress, and none of the parties have identified any particular circumstance which would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach.

6Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

7Where 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).

8I am not seized of this matter.