Jackson v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 918

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sheila Jackson Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Corporation and Barry Thomas Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: June 26, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 918 Indexed as: Jackson v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on March 18, 2009. The applicant alleges discrimination in the area of employment on the basis of race, colour, disability and sex. She also alleges reprisals or threat of reprisals as well as sexual solicitation or advances.

2The respondents filed a Response and requested that the Application be deferred pursuant to Rule 14.1. They argue there are ongoing grievances under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. The applicant filed a Reply in which she responded to the request for a deferral.

3The applicant’s union, the Toronto Civic Employees Union Local 416 (“Union”), has sought leave to intervene in this matter.

Background

4The respondents state that five grievances filed on behalf of the applicant are proceeding to arbitration on September 29, 2009. They state that these grievances address discipline imposed on the applicant as well as allegations by the applicant that she was harassed by management pursuant to the Code. The respondents argue that it would be fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

3The applicant argues that the substance of the grievances is different from that of the Application and that the issues of racial and sexual harassment are not before the arbitrator. She urges the Tribunal to proceed with the Application notwithstanding the upcoming grievance arbitration.

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 deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

9Pursuant to Rule 14.2, where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an application, it will first give the parties, any identified trade union or occupational or professional organization and any identified affected persons, an opportunity to make submissions.

10Within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the Union may make written submissions regarding whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of this Application until such time as the grievance is resolved. In these submissions, the Union should address the status of ongoing grievance proceedings and whether they are based on the same facts and issues as the Application.

11The Registrar will provide a copy of the Application, the Response and this Interim Decision to the Union.

12In my view, given that the Union may make submissions on the preliminary question of deferral, it is not necessary to determine the Union’s request to intervene at this time.