Gricken v. Palin Foundation, 2010 HRTO 1649

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Janice Gricken

Applicant

-and-

Palin Foundation c.o.b. Oakham House/SCC

and Douglas Pratt

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: August 6, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1649

Indexed as: Gricken v. Palin Foundation

1This is an Application filed on May 4, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

2The applicant indicates in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance proceeding that is still in progress. The applicant has provided further information to indicate that the grievance is scheduled to go to arbitration on August 10, 2010.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer dated June 15, 2010 in which it indicated that it might be appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the applicant’s grievance. The Tribunal indicated to the parties and to the applicant’s bargaining agent, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (“OPSEU”) Local 596 (Unit 2), that they could make submissions as to why consideration of the Application should or should not be deferred. The Tribunal has received no submissions.

4The 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 (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). In each case, the Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

5An arbitration hearing has been set to deal with the same allegations as raised in the Application and will take place shortly. It will take place before a decision-maker with appropriate remedial authority. Grievance arbitrators have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement as was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42). Under these circumstances I am satisfied that I should follow the Tribunal’s general practice and defer the Application given there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues as raised in the Application.

6I make this decision mindful of the fact that the applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings on May 5, 2010 expressing concern that the arbitration date for her grievance has been delayed to August 10, 2010 and that her one year allowance for filing her Application with the Tribunal could elapse. However, I note that the scheduled arbitration date is imminent and a deferral does not effect whether an Application has been filed in a timely fashion. Consequently, this information has not altered my view that a deferral is appropriate. Given I am deciding to defer the Application I make no formal decision in relation to the applicant’s Request to Expedite.

7The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the grievance process has been concluded.

8I am not seized.