DesGroseilliers v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2010 HRTO 2348

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donna DesGroseilliers Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region Respondent

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: November 29, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2348 Indexed as: DesGroseilliers v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

1This is an Application filed on May 17, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c, H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges that the applicant was discriminated against in her former employment on the basis of sex, family status, age, association with a person identified by a ground and reprisal. Among other things, the applicant complains about being fired and denied opportunities such as secondary employment and/or volunteer opportunities in the community.

2The applicant had indicated that the facts set out in the Application are part of a union grievance still in progress and attached a grievance form. The grievance challenges the applicant’s termination and cites “harassment, unequal treatment”. The applicant states that she is not seeking deferral.

3On July 30, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer and sought submissions from the parties and the applicant’s union on the issue. The Notice was subsequently re-issued on August 30, 2010 when the letter originally sent to the union was returned.

4Submissions have been received from the respondent and the union. The respondent states that it does not object to deferral. While acknowledging that there are significant areas of overlap in the factual issues, however, the respondent states that the factual issues are broader in the Application than in the grievance arbitration underway. Further, the respondent states that the union has not alleged that the respondent acted contrary to the Code. The union has not filed submissions on deferral but has indicated that the arbitration of the grievance proceeded in October and that there is another date scheduled for January 4, 2011.

5The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. However, even where the facts and issues are not identical, the Tribunal may consider whether it is appropriate to defer to another legal proceeding. Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the types of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer the Application, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

6In the circumstances of this case, I find deferral is appropriate. There is clear overlap between the grievance filed and the Application insofar as the termination is a central factual issue in each. Even accepting that the grievance arbitration may not be addressing the human rights issues directly, I find it appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings addressing the same factual issues. Further, I am influenced by the advanced stage of the grievance arbitration proceeding including that a final hearing date is scheduled for January 4, 2011.

7The Application is deferred until the conclusion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.

8The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the grievance arbitration proceeding has been concluded.

9I am not seized of this matter.