Delight Farmer v. Corporation of the Township of Bonfield, Narry McCarthy, Robert Amyotte and J.P. Constant, 2009 HRTO 697

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Delight Farmer

Applicant

-and-

Corporation of the Township of Bonfield, Narry McCarthy, Robert Amyotte and J.P. Constant

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: May 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 697

Indexed as: Farmer v. Bonfield (Township)

1This is an Application filed October 9, 2008 under section 53(3) of part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code). The Case Resolution Conference is scheduled for July 27 and 28, 2009.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ request to defer the hearing in this matter in light of a parallel arbitration proceeding.

3The applicant filed the complaint underlying the present Application with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on February 10, 2008 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. She also filed a grievance on January 30, 2008 alleging a breach of Article 4.01 (prohibition of discrimination) of the collective agreement. That grievance has been referred to arbitration, an arbitrator has been selected and the respondents and the Union are in the process of scheduling hearing dates.

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

5The applicant does not dispute that her grievance addresses different facts or issues than raised by the Application. Instead, she has attempted to distinguish her situation on the basis that two of the persons involved in the alleged discrimination were members of the Union and their conduct as union members would not likely be sufficiently addressed in a grievance against her employer. The difficulty I have in accepting this argument is that the Application is against the employer and the employees acting on behalf of the employer and therefore, if the employees in question contributed to the alleged employment discrimination, their conduct could arguably be addressed by the grievance.

6Accordingly, the Tribunal will defer the Application pending the completion of the grievance process.

7Following completion of the grievance process, if the applicant believes that the allegations of discrimination in the Application were not appropriately dealt with, she may request the Tribunal to resume these proceedings, no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding.

8I am not seized of this matter.