Reeves v. Norfolk (County), 2009 HRTO 1353

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dawn Reeves

Applicant

-and-

County of Norfolk and Steven Virgin

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: August 28, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1353 Indexed as: Reeves v. Norfolk (County)

1This is an Application filed on April 10, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

2The applicant indicates in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance proceeding that is still in progress and she asks that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance process.

3Norfolk County (“the County”) consents to the request for deferral on the basis that the substance of the Application is the same as the substance of the grievance. Mr. Virgin and OPSEU have not responded to the request for deferral within the time limit for doing so.

4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings, even where parties consent to deferral. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

5The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that grievance arbitrators have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).

6The Supreme Court thus confirmed that human rights tribunals are not the only decision-makers that can decide human rights claims. Where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising the same human rights issues before a decision-making body with the authority to make determinations about those issues, the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the other proceeding. In such a scenario, the Tribunal’s normal approach is to defer to the other proceeding.

7In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievance. Both the applicant and the County wish the Application to be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance process. There are no circumstances in this case which would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach.

8The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

9The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.

10I am not seized.