Veronica Hutchinson v. Garda Canada Security Corporation and Teamsters Local 487, 2010 HRTO 169

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Veronica Hutchinson

Applicant

-and-

Garda Canada Security Corporation and Teamsters Local 487

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: January 26, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 169 Indexed as: Hutchinson v. Garda Canada Security

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleges discrimination in employment on the ground of discrimination. The applicant has named both her former employer, Garda Canada Security Corporation (“Garda Canada”), and her former bargaining agent, Teamsters Local 487 (“the union”), as respondents.

2Garda Security Screening Inc. (“Garda Security”) filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking the "referral" of the Application to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) on the basis that Garda Security is a federally-regulated entity. It also stated that the applicant was employed by Garda Security, not Garda Canada. The respondent union filed a Response to the RFOP supporting the position that Garda Security is federally-regulated. The applicant filed a Response to the RFOP confirming that she is proceeding with a complaint to the CHRC, and suggested that the Application be deferred until the outcome of that complaint.

3In an Interim Decision, Hutchinson v. Garda Canada Security, 2009 HRTO 2253, the Tribunal called for submissions from the respondents with respect to the applicant’s suggestion that this Application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's complaint to the CHRC.

4The union filed its submissions supporting the deferral of the Application. Neither Garda Canada nor Garda Security filed any submissions within the time limit for doing so.

5It appears that all three parties to this proceeding are of the view that deferral of this Application is the most appropriate way of proceeding at this time. For the reasons articulated in Davies v. Compton Cable T.V., 2009 HRTO 178, which were reviewed in the Interim Decision, the Tribunal agrees.

6The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the CHRC process.

7I am not seized.