Catherine Cloutier v. Upper Canada District School Board, 2009 HRTO 616

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Catherine Cloutier

Applicant

-and-

Upper Canada District School Board, Ann Presley, Darquise Swerdfeger, Bonnie McPherson, Scott Barnes, Shirley Ravary, Barbara Garand, Alison Sutherland, Cary Kronwald, and Shannon Savard

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: May 12, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 616

Indexed as: Cloutier v. Upper Canada District School Board

1This is an Application filed on January 6, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV 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 age, as well as reprisals. The respondents filed a Response in which, among other things, they request that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance process. This Interim Decision deals with the request to defer.

DEFERRAL OF APPLICATION

2In her Application, the applicant states that the facts of the Application are part of another proceeding that is still in progress. The applicant has sent the Tribunal a copy of the grievance filed on the applicant’s behalf by the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (ETFO), in which it is alleged that the respondent the Upper Canada District School Board (the Board) has subjected the applicant to discrimination, harassment, objectionable behaviour, a poisoned work environment and breaches of confidentiality. It is alleged that the Board’s actions are in breach of the collective agreement and the Code.

3The ETFO was sent Notice of the Application. Although it has not sought to intervene, it has sent correspondence stating that the union has referred the matter to arbitration, as of October 30, 2008 .

4The 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 the deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

5In the circumstances before it, the Tribunal sees no reason to depart from its usual approach. This Application will be deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance.

6Since the Tribunal has decided to defer this Application it is not necessary to deal, at this time, with the respondents’ request to dismiss the Application on the basis that it has been brought outside the time lines in the Code.

7The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the grievance has been concluded.

8I am not seized.