Coyne v. Huron Perth Healthcare Alliance, 2010 HRTO 1958

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Audrey Coyne

Applicant

-and-

Huron Perth Healthcare Alliance

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: September 24, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1958

Indexed as: Coyne v. Huron Perth Healthcare Alliance

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Audrey Coyne, Applicant ) Carrie Venner, Representative

Huron Perth Healthcare Alliance, ) Barry Brown, Counsel

Respondent )

Canadian Union of Public Employees, ) Paul O’Ryan, Counsel

Union )

ii

1This is an Application filed on May 7, 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 two related grievance proceedings.

2The applicant indicates in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance proceeding that is still in progress, and encloses a copy of a grievance filed on his behalf by his union, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4727 (the “union”), dated April 26, 2010.

3The Tribunal sent the parties and the union a Notice of Intent to Defer and sought submissions. The submissions have now been received.

4The applicant objects to the deferral and indicates that there may be delays in moving the grievance forward and the applicant would be prejudiced by the potential delays.

5The respondent supports deferral and point out that there are, in fact, two related grievances involving the applicant, the second of which was filed on June 16, 2010. They argue that the issues raised in the grievances, that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant’s disability and that she was terminated as a result of her disability, are precisely the ones that form the substance of the Application. Finally, they point out that both grievances raise Code issues.

6The union supports deferral and suggests that it is premature to contemplate delay in the grievance process and any resulting potential prejudice to the applicant as the parties are scheduled to meet in September, 2010 to discuss the grievances that are currently being processed.

7The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

8The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that 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 (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).

9The Supreme Court thus confirmed that human rights tribunals are not the only decision-makers that can decide human rights claims. Where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising the same human rights issues before a decision-making body with the authority to make determinations about those issues, the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the other proceeding. In such a scenario, the Tribunal’s normal approach is to defer to the other proceeding.

10In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the two grievances. The matters are still live and the grievance processes have not concluded. It is not yet apparent whether or not the applicant’s grievances will be referred to arbitration. But if the applicant believes, on conclusion of the processes, that her human rights issues have not been adequately addressed, she may ask to have her Application brought back on before the Tribunal.

11The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance processes.

12The 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 grievance processes.

13I am not seized.