Mary Collins v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2009 HRTO 2178

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mary Collins Applicant

-and-

Liquor Control Board of Ontario Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: December 15, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2178 Indexed as: Collins v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario

1In this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended ("the Code"), the applicant alleges discrimination in employment based on disability.

2This Interim Decision will decide whether or not the Application should be deferred pending grievance/arbitration proceedings.

3The applicant makes various allegations about what she alleges to be a difficult return-to-work experience. Through her bargaining agent, OPSEU, the applicant has filed a grievance which relates to the same facts raised by the applicant in support of her Application.

4By Notice of Intent to Defer dated November 18, 2009, the Tribunal provided an opportunity to the parties to make submissions as to whether or not the Application should be deferred in the circumstances. Both parties have provided submissions, and both parties seek the deferral of the Application pending the outcome of the current grievance/arbitration proceedings which are ongoing. Specifically, according to the respondent, the applicant's grievance was referred to arbitration by OPSEU on August 10, 2009, and the matter is in the process of being scheduled for hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board.

5Despite the parties consenting to deferral, it is necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether that is the most appropriate manner of proceeding in the circumstances of each case.

6In this case, the Tribunal agrees with the respondent's submissions that:

a. the applicant's grievance raises issues which are identical to those raised in the Application, and thus to not defer the Application would potentially result in consideration of the issues in multiple forums, a duplication of proceedings and the potential for inconsistent results;

b. the subject matter of the Application can be appropriately dealt with under the collective agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 38 and Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, Sch. A, as the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board has the authority and is fully capable of addressing the issues in the Application, including those that arise under the Code.

7In the circumstances, deferral is the most appropriate way of proceeding.

8The 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.

9I am not seized.