<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
**B E T W E E N:**
Valerie Anderson
Applicant
-and-
Trillium Demonstration School
Respondent
---
**INTERIM DECISION**
**Adjudicator:** Mary Truemner
**Date:** October 14, 2009
**Citation:** 2009 HRTO 1679
**Indexed as:** Anderson v. Trillium Demonstration School
---
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] This is an Application dated July 17, 2009, filed under section 34 of Part IV of the *Human Rights Code*, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination because of race, colour, ethnic origin and disability in employment. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider the Request to Defer made by the applicant.
[2] The Tribunal served the application on the respondent and the applicant’s union, Ontario Public Service Employees Union (the “union”) on August 26, 2009, and invited both to make submissions within 14 days as to why the consideration of this Application should or should not be deferred. Neither the respondent nor the union has made any submissions.
## DEFERRAL REQUEST
[3] The applicant has indicated that the facts of this Application are part of another proceeding that is still in progress. The applicant has filed with the Tribunal a grievance form dated May 4, 2009, to support her Request to Defer pending the outcome of the grievance proceeding. The form is signed by the grievor, who is the applicant, and the local president of the union. It indicates that the employer has violated the *Code*, and that the applicant has been subjected to acts of discrimination and harassment because of her race and ethnic origin.
[4] The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (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 and issues raised by this Application appear to be part of a grievance process that is still in progress. No one has identified any particular circumstance which would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach.
[5] In these circumstances deferral is appropriate. The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.
[6] Where 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).
[7] I am not seized of this matter.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 14^th^ day of October, 2009.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel