Syska v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 HRTO 1938

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ruth Syska

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General and Paul Cormier

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: November 16, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1938

Indexed as: Syska v. Ontario (Attorney General)

1This is an Application filed on July 6, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status in employment.

2In their Response, the respondents submit that the applicant also filed a grievance alleging the same acts of discrimination as raised in the Application. The respondents request that the Application be deferred until the grievance proceeding is completed. They attached a copy of a grievance, dated September 2, 2009, alleging the respondent employer refused to consider the applicant for promotional opportunities and assignments based on sex, family status and disability. The grievance also alleges a violation of the Code. The respondents indicate that a stage 2 grievance meeting will be held.

3The Tribunal notified the applicant of the respondents’ Request to Defer and provided her with an opportunity to file a Reply, addressing the Request to Defer. The applicant did not file a Reply and the time for doing so has passed.

4Pursuant to Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, 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. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. 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.

5On October 16, 2009, the applicant’s union, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (the “union”), advised the Tribunal that it received a copy of the respondents’ Response and Request to Defer in this matter but it had not received a copy of the Application. On October 19, 2009, the Tribunal provided a copy of the Application to counsel for the union.

6Pursuant to Rule 14.2, where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an application, it will first give the parties, any identified trade union or occupational or professional organization and any identified affected persons, an opportunity to make submissions. Within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant’s union may make written submissions regarding whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of this Application until such time as the grievance is resolved. In these submissions, the union should address the status of the grievance proceeding.

7I am not seized.