Reid v. Revera Long Term Care Inc., 2010 HRTO 2058

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maureen Reid

Applicant

• and-

Revera Long Term Care Inc., c.o.b. as West Oak Village, Diane Fitzpatrick and Jim Galbraith

Respondents

• and-

Service Employees International Union Local 1 Canada

Intervenor

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: October 8, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2058

Indexed as: Reid v. Revera Long Term Care

1The applicant filed an Application on April 16, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability. In her Application, the applicant notes that the facts relied upon in her Application are part of a grievance. The applicant provided a copy of the grievance.

2The Application was served on the respondents and the applicant’s union, Service Employees International Union Local 1 Canada, as a named affected party.

3On July 30, 2010, the respondents filed their Response, wherein they have requested the Tribunal defer the Application pending the resolution of the applicant’s grievance.

4On August 23, 2010, the applicant’s union filed a Request to Intervene. This Request indicates the applicant’s grievance is still in progress. The union submits that it seeks to intervene in this Application in order to protect the applicant’s interest in the grievance process.

5The respondents and applicant have not responded to the Request to Intervene and the time for doing so has elapsed.

6On September 16, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject matter of the Application pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal invited the applicant, the respondent and the applicant’s union to file submissions no later than September 30, 2010 as to why consideration of the Application should or should not be deferred.

7On September 30, 2010, the applicant filed a response to the Request to Defer. The applicant’s submission do not appear to address the issue of deferral, but rather address an issue of dismissal and whether another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

REQUEST TO DEFER

8The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

9In their Response, the respondents submit that the grievance raises issues of accommodation which are directly related to the allegations made in the current Application. The respondents indicate that a grievance meeting was held with the union in June 2010 and subsequently, on July 9, 2010, the union provided written notice that it was proceeding with an arbitration hearing.

10Based on the materials filed with the Tribunal, it appears that there is an outstanding grievance regarding the same concerns which are raised in the Application. The grievance appears to seek similar remedies to those identified in the Application. I conclude that there is significant overlap in the subject matter of the Application and that of the outstanding grievance.

11In these circumstances deferral is appropriate. The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

12The applicant’s union seeks to intervene in accordance with Rule 11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The union represents the applicant in the current grievance arising out of the facts that give rise to this Application. The union indicates that the grievance is on-going and the respondents submit that arbitration is pending. The union submits that it has a significant interest in the outcome of the Application as the applicant’s bargaining agent and the entity with representing her in the grievance.

13In accordance with the Tribunal’s standard practice where an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit represented by the union, the union’s request to intervene is granted. Given the Tribunal’s decision to defer this Application, the extent and the nature of the union’s participation in the proceeding can be determined when and if the matter is brought back before the Tribunal.

14Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

15I am not seized of this matter.