Judith Pidgeon v. College of Nurses of Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1519

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Judith Pidgeon Applicant

-and-

College of Nurses of Ontario, Amanda Achtymichuk, Faira Bari, Anne Coghlan, Catherine Genereux, Kimberly Germain, Jenna Hofbauer, Melissa Jeethan, Shirley Kennedy, Risa Kirshblum, Anne McKenzie, Cara Moroney, Prudence Morton, Lucy O’Hearn-Grant, Johanna Braden, April Ferreira, S.E.I.U. Local 1, Kristen Agrell, Ron Collie, Brad Philp, Ron Roscoe, Sharlene Stewart, Barbara Rankin and Dana Randall Respondents

And Between:

Judith Pidgeon Applicant

-and-

Bayshore Home Health, Tammy Bienvenuto, Stephanie Buchanan, Stuart Cottrelle, Sheila D’Amore, Susan Fraser, Sara Gleason, Joanne Knudson-Bailey, Tammy LaPlante, Keri-Ann Maenpaa, Caron Moffett, Maureen Prairie, Sue Robinson, Evelyn Veneruzzo, Brenda Green, Michelle Hogan, Lorraine Pairtinen, and Norma Skinner Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: July 13, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1519 Indexed as: Pidgeon v. College of Nurses of Ontario

1This Interim Decision concerns two related Applications filed on June 17, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, age and record of offences.

2In an earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 2160, the Tribunal determined that it was appropriate to defer both Applications pending completion of a grievance proceeding. The Tribunal directed the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which outline the process by which a party may request that the Tribunal proceed to deal with applications that have been deferred after the conclusion of the other process.

3On April 27, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, seeking, among other things, the reactivation of the deferred Applications.

4The respondent Bayshore Home Health, and 17 individual respondents (the “Bayshore respondents”), filed a Response to the Request, opposing the Orders requested. The Bayshore respondents submit that there are no material changes in facts, events or circumstances since the Tribunal’s Interim Decision deferring the Applications which would warrant the Tribunal revising the decision to defer the Applications.

5The respondent College of Nurses of Ontario, and 15 individual respondents (the “College respondents”), also filed a Response to the Request, submitting that the Request should be dismissed. The College respondents submit that, under Rule 14.4, the applicant is required to provide the date on which the arbitration proceeding concluded as well as the decision or order in that proceeding. The applicant has not provided this information, as it appears the arbitration hearing has not concluded.

6The respondent S.E.I.U. Local 1, and five individual respondents (the “union respondents”), also filed a Response to the Request, opposing the Request. The union respondents submit that no material facts have changed that would justify departing from the Tribunal’s decision to defer. They submit that a grievance hearing has been scheduled for October 25, 2010.

7The applicant’s request to reactivate these Applications is premature as the grievance proceeding has not yet concluded. In addition, there are no circumstances identified by the applicant that would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach to deferral, as set out in the Tribunal’s earlier Interim Decision.

8The applicant’s Request to reactivate the Application is dismissed. The remaining aspects of the applicant’s Request can be dealt with if and when the Applications are reactivated.

9I am not seized.