Paula Addley v. PGI Fabrene Inc. et al., 2010 HRTO 1864

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paula Addley

Applicant

-and-

PGI Fabrene Inc., Roger Perry, Steve Rickersten, Rich Ladouceur, Craig Hurst, Chris Haas, Derek Peters, Peter Beaty, Lise Goldthorpe, Brenda Vaananen, Garry Furlong and Stuart Hogan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: September 13, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1864

Indexed as: Addley v. PGI Fabrene

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleges discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and age in the context of employment. It also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2In essence, the applicant states that the respondents treated her differently because of her sex. She alleges, among other things, that she was spoken to in a derogatory fashion, that she was not paid the same as her male counterparts, that she was denied advancement opportunities, and that the respondents exhibited a negative attitude towards women.

3The applicant had also filed a number of grievances under a collective agreement that include allegations of discrimination and harassment under the Code.

4On July 7, 2010, the Tribunal administratively issued a Notice of Intent to Defer ("NOID"), indicating that it may be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the grievances. The Tribunal invited submission on the deferral issue from the applicant, the respondents and the Northern Independent Union ("Union").

5The applicant and all of the respondents except Derek Peters have filed submissions. Derek Peters and the Union have not provided submissions and the time for doing so has elapsed.

6On September 6, 2010, the applicant filed additional written submissions stating, as I understand it, that the grievances have been withdrawn and will not proceed to arbitration.

7The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

8Based on the applicant's September 6, 2010 submissions, there are no longer any ongoing grievances. Accordingly, there is no reason to defer consideration of the Application.

9I am not seized of this matter.