Harvia Gray v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology and Arthur Burke, 2009 HRTO 77

1This is an Application filed September 10, 2008 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, sex, and reprisal.

2By Interim Decision, Gray v. Seneca College, 2008 HRTO 406, the Tribunal invited submissions from the parties on the issue of deferral, as there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement dealing with the facts of this Application. The respondent made submissions on the request to defer, but the other parties did not.

3The arbitration hearing of the grievance began on November 18, 2008. At the hearing, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union sought to have it adjourned pending the outcome of this Application. This request was opposed by the employer. In a decision dated December 19, 2008, the majority of the Board of Arbitration chaired by Michel Picher denied the adjournment. The arbitration hearing has commenced and is ongoing.

4In most cases, the Tribunal will grant deferral where the facts and issues raised in an application are part of an ongoing grievance process under a collective agreement: Cray v. Rouge Valley Health System, 2008 HRTO 120; Aubin v. Waterloo (Regional Municipality), 2008 HRTO 214. There is no reason to depart from this approach in this case.

5Accordingly, the Tribunal will defer this matter pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process. Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

6I am not seized of this matter.