Patricia Bristow v. District School Board Ontario North East, 2009 HRTO 380

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Patricia Bristow Applicant

-and-

District School Board Ontario North East Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: April 6, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 380 Indexed as: Bristow v. District School Board Ontario North East

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application filed on March 16, 2009, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

2With her Application, the applicant filed a Form 14 Request to Expedite. The respondent has responded to that Request, and has filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to ask that the applicant’s union, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (the “OSSTF”), be added as a party. The respondent’s Response to Application is not due until April 23, 2009.

3On review, it appears that the applicant’s submissions on her Request to Expedite are directed to a request that the Tribunal should not defer its process because the applicant has a grievance underway.

4Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under 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. Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an application, it will first give the parties and any identified trade union or occupational or professional organization and any identified affected person, notice of its intention to consider deferral and an opportunity to make submissions (Rule 14.2).

5The Tribunal usually defers 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.

6The applicant has provided a number of reasons why she feels that this Application should not be deferred. In the circumstances, the most expeditious way to proceed is to request submissions from both the respondent and the OSSTF (as an affected party) on the issue of deferral. The applicant will be given an opportunity to respond to these submissions.

7The respondent is directed to deliver written submissions on the issue of deferral to the applicant and the OSSTF, and file them with the Tribunal, by April 17, 2009.

8The OSSTF may deliver written submissions on the issue of deferral to the applicant and respondent, and file them with the Tribunal, by April 24, 2009.

9The Applicant may deliver a written response to the submissions on the issue of deferral to the applicant, and file them with the Tribunal, by May 6, 2009.

10The Tribunal is aware that, in addition to the outstanding Request for Order from the Applicant, there is a Request to add the union as a party from the respondent. This will be addressed in the Tribunal’s Interim Decision on deferral.

11I am not seized of this matter.