Thornton v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 980

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wanda Thornton

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Paula Wilson, Judy Sandford, Peter Howes and Joanne Gooding

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: July 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 980

Indexed as: Thornton v. Toronto Police Services Board

1This is an Application filed December 31, 2008 under Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ request for deferral in light of a parallel arbitration proceeding.

2The complaint underlying the present Application filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on August 3, 2007, alleges discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability. On June 26, 2006, the applicant’s union filed a grievance alleging workplace harassment and discrimination on terms largely similar to the factual allegations set out in the human rights complaint.

3The grievance was referred to arbitration and the parties have appeared before an arbitrator twice. The first day was spent conducting an unsuccessful mediation and the second was spent hearing the Union’s request to defer the arbitration proceeding in light of the present Application at the Tribunal. The arbitrator issued a decision declining to defer the arbitration proceedings on May 6, 2009. Two further dates for hearing are scheduled for August 2009.

4The applicant opposes the deferral request on the basis that the arbitration process will not address the ongoing harassment and discrimination which has been occurring since the filing of the grievance on June 26, 2006 and the reprisals experienced since the filing of the human rights complaint on August 3, 2007. The applicant has filed two new Applications with the Tribunal in April 2009 and June 2009 alleging ongoing discrimination and harassment as well as reprisal. These Applications are in the early stages of processing by the Tribunal.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. The 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.

6In my view, in light of the overlapping factual matters and the stage of the arbitration proceedings, the factors favouring deferral of this Application outweigh the factors favouring the Tribunal proceeding with the Application. I realize that the arbitration proceeding may not address the post-June 2006 aspects of the Applications before the Tribunal, but the pre-June 2006 allegations should be dealt with first.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal will defer the Application. Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must contact the Registrar-Transition no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.