HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Rosa Clinton
Applicant
-and-
OLG Casino Brantford
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Clinton v. OLG Casino Brantford
1This is an Application filed on June 16, 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 a related grievance proceeding.
2The applicant indicates in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance proceeding (OLG Grievance Number 1201-CAW-2010) that is still in progress. The applicant has provided a letter from her union, CAW Local 397, to the respondent dated April 23, 2010 stating that her union will be referring the applicant’s grievance to arbitration.
3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer dated September 24, 2010 in which it indicated that it might be appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the applicant’s grievance. The Tribunal indicated to the parties and to the applicant’s union that they could make submissions as to why consideration of the Application should or should not be deferred. The Tribunal has received no submissions.
4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). In each case, the Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
5It appears that the applicant’s grievance, which raises the same allegations as raised in the Application, is proceeding to arbitration. It will take place before a decision-maker with appropriate remedial authority. 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 as was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42). Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that I should follow the Tribunal’s general practice and defer the Application given there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues as raised in the Application.
6The 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 process has been concluded.
7I am not seized.
”signed by”__________
Eric Whist
Vice-chair