Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Alisha Scott Applicant
-and-
County of Renfrew Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: June 1, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1227 Indexed as: Scott v. Renfrew (County)
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) in which she alleges discrimination on the basis of sex in the context of employment.
2In essence, the applicant alleges that the respondent failed to provide appropriate modified work for her during her pregnancy. The applicant states that the facts of this Application are part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.
3The respondent has filed a Response in which it denies the allegations of discrimination and seeks an order deferring the Application pending the outcome of the grievance proceeding. The respondent states that deferral is appropriate because:
a. the grievance has been referred to arbitration; b. an arbitration date has been set; and c. an arbitration pursuant to the collective agreement (rather than a proceeding before the Tribunal) is the more appropriate venue for addressing the issues raised in the Application.
4As I understand the respondent’s argument, while it states that a dismissal is the appropriate end result in this case, it is not seeking an early dismissal of the Application based on an ongoing grievance.
5The applicant has filed a Reply in which she states that she would prefer that the matter be dealt with by the Tribunal. To this end, she indicates that she is prepared to withdraw her grievance, but only if the Tribunal advises that it “would hear her complaint and that it would not find that the grievance procedure is the more appropriate forum to deal with her complaint”.
REQUEST TO DEFER
6Pursuant to 2008 amendments to the Code, the Tribunal will not dismiss an application simply because a grievance process was or could have been initiated regarding the same issues.
7However, the Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.
8In this case, there is no dispute that the subject-matter of the Application is substantially similar to that of the grievance. In the circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to defer the Application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.
9As I have indicated, the applicant has stated that she may wish to withdraw the grievance in order to pursue the matter before the Tribunal. If she opts to do this, she may then seek to have the Application dealt with by the Tribunal. The parties’ attention is directed to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after a deferral.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of June, 2010.
”signed by”______________
Michelle Flaherty Vice-chair