Jastinder Manchanda v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Rhona Delisle, 2009 HRTO 406

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Jastinder Manchanda Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Rhona Delisle Respondents

Reconsideration Decision

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: April 8, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 406 Indexed as: Manchanda v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Reasons for Decision

1This is a Request for Reconsideration of my Interim Decision dated April 2, 2009 declining to dismiss or defer the Application in light of a pending arbitration. The Tribunal inadvertently issued the Interim Decision prior to receipt and review of the respondents’ reply submissions. In these circumstances, although a refusal to defer or dismiss would not be considered a “final” decision, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to reconsider its decision in order to consider the respondents’ reply submissions.

2I have carefully reviewed the respondents’ reply submissions.

3With respect to the November 6, 2006 grievance, the respondents reply that this grievance raised an ongoing pattern of discrimination and harassment until November 2006, and when it was settled they were entitled to consider that all allegations of harassment and discrimination up to and including November 2006 were settled.

4There is no evidence before me upon which I can conclude that the underlying complaint in this grievance encompassed all allegations of discrimination and harassment until November 2006. In any event, the minutes of settlement signed by the applicant do not preclude her from continuing her outstanding human rights complaint.

5With respect to the March 27, 2007 grievance, the respondents reply that the Union cannot withdraw a grievance unilaterally without prejudice: Algonquin College v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 415, 2008 CanLii 40222.

6In my view, the filing and subsequent withdrawal of the harassment and discrimination grievance by the Union in the circumstances described above does not mean that the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt with: McCrea v. Loblaw Companies, 2009 HRTO 17.

7I see no basis to defer the Application pending the resolution of the outstanding grievance, dated August 17, 2007. That grievance relates to events which post-date the current Application and relate to the placement of the applicant on sick leave. There is no overlap between the Application, which relates primarily to allegations of race-based harassment and discrimination between 2004 and 2006 and the grievance, which relates to the placement of the applicant on sick leave. The only potential human rights issue raised by the grievance might relate to an alleged failure to accommodate in 2007.

8I note that although the applicant has focused on the race-based aspect of her Application, there are allegations of differential treatment which may amount to failure to accommodate a shoulder injury from September 2004 to June 2005. However, the time frame in question does not overlap with the ongoing grievance.

9In my view, the usual considerations which come to play in deferring an Application in light of a pending arbitration proceeding, such as the possibility of duplication of proceedings and inconsistent findings of facts do not arise in the circumstances here.

10The respondents’ Request for Reconsideration is denied.