HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Paula Warren Applicant
-and-
Martinrea Fabco Metallic Canada Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: October 7, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2043 Indexed as: Warren v. Martinrea Fabco Metallic Canada
1This is an Application filed on July 13, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The 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 the grievance filed on her behalf by her union, CAW Local 127 (the “union”).
2This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of this grievance proceeding. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer (“Notice”) on August 19, 2010. The respondent responded to this Notice by indicating its strong belief that deferral is appropriate.
3The applicant did not respond to the Notice, although she did submit a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) asking to amend her Application. This request to amend appears to be unrelated to any deferral issue. The union filed a Request to Intervene (Form 5) on which it states that it “believes that the result of any settlement to the grievance will resolve the matter.”
4The 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.
5The 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. See Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42.
6The 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.
7In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievance. In view of both this and the fact that the parties and proposed intervenor have not voiced any opposition to deferral of this matter, the Application will be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.
8The 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 process. The Union’s Request to Intervene and the applicant’s Request for Order to amend the Application will be dealt with by the Tribunal should the Application be brought back on.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of October, 2010.
”signed by”_________________
Naomi Overend Vice-chair