Willis v. Loblaw Companies Limited, 2009 HRTO 206

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Diane Willis

Applicant

-and-

Loblaw Companies Limited and Ross Bonomo

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: February 26, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 206

Indexed as: Willis v. Loblaw Companies

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on November 14, 2008. This Interim Decision deals with the request by the respondents to defer this proceeding until grievances filed on behalf of the applicant by her union have been dealt with in accordance with the collective agreement.

2The 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. 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.

3In her grievances, the applicant has made several allegations, one of which is that her employer has violated the Code by failing to provide a harassment free workplace. By letter dated December 30, 2008, counsel for the applicant’s union informed the Tribunal that the union does not intend to intervene in the Tribunal’s proceedings. Also, counsel for the union confirmed that the ongoing grievances are in relation to the matters that the applicant raised in her human rights Application.

4By letter dated January 14, 2009, the applicant responded to the deferral request. She noted that she had told her union representative that she wanted to proceed with her human rights Application, but the union would “not drop” the grievances at this time. I can only conclude that the grievances are still in progress.

5Given that the grievances include an allegation of a Code violation and involve the same facts and issues as those raised in this Application, the Tribunal orders the deferral of this Application pending the conclusion of the grievance process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline how the Application may be brought back on after the grievances have been concluded.

6While there are still outstanding requests to the Tribunal from the parties, there is no need to deal with them until after this Application is brought back on.

7I am not seized of this matter.