Sandra Bigelow v. Sudbury Regional Hospital, 2009 HRTO 665

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sandra Bigelow

Applicant

-and-

Sudbury Regional Hospital

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 20, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 665

Indexed as: Bigelow v. Sudbury Regional Hospital

1The applicant filed an Application under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. At the same time, she also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 14). On April 27, 2009, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the parties along with a copy of the Application and Request to Expedite. This Interim Decision addresses both the request to expedite and the deferral issue.

2The applicant states that she sustained a non-work related injury to her back in May 2007. Prior to her injury, she worked as a Medical Records Clerk. She alleges that the respondent has failed to accommodate her by providing her with suitable modified work. In the Request to Expedite, dated April 17, 2009, the applicant advised that the basis of her request was that she would be without any income commencing May 2009.

3On January 19, 2009, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1623, (“CUPE”) filed a grievance on the applicant’s behalf requesting that she be accommodated in a suitable job. CUPE was given notice of the Application and Form 14. In its Response to the Request to Expedite, CUPE takes the position that the Application should be deferred until the conclusion of the arbitral process. In the covering letter to this Response, CUPE advises that mediation was scheduled for May 12 and 13, 2009, and if this was not successful, CUPE would proceed to schedule arbitration dates.

4The respondent’s Response likewise opposes the Request to Expedite on the basis that the Application should be deferred until the conclusion of the arbitral process. The applicant did not file submissions on the deferral issue.

THE LAW

5The expedited hearing process is available where the circumstances of an application “require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute” (see Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). Where the Tribunal decides to expedite a proceeding, it may do so by abridging time limits, scheduling early dates, or taking any other steps it deems appropriate. An applicant requesting that his or her matter be expedited must identify urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application and the harm that may result if the request is denied (Rule 21.2).

6The 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 particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

DECISION

7Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am not prepared to grant the applicant’s Request to Expedite this mater. The applicant has not identified any urgent circumstances that would affect “the fair and just resolution of the merits” of her application. Her concern about her lack of income is shared by many other applicants in employment cases who find themselves without a job or income. Moreover, it would appear that CUPE is proceeding with her grievance and, in the circumstances of this case, that is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the allegations in her Application.

8Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of this Application pending the conclusion of the applicant’s grievance. The 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.

9I am not seized of this matter.