Terry Shackelton v. Thames Valley District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1790

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Terry Shackelton Applicant

-and-

Thames Valley District School Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: October 27, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1790 Indexed as: Shackelton v. Thames Valley District School Board

1On September 9, 2009, the 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.

2On October 1, 2009, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the parties and CUPE (Local 42222A), named in the Application as an affected party. Both parties and the union have filed submissions indicating that they are not opposed to a deferral of the Application pending resolution of a grievance proceeding to arbitration on April 15, 2010.

3The 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. The 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 the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

4In the circumstances and given the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal orders that this Application be deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which a party may request, in accordance with Rule 19, that the Tribunal proceed with an application after the conclusion of another process.

5I am not seized of this matter.