HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Cindy Roach
Applicant
-and-
Pembroke Police Service, Pembroke Police Services Board,
David Hawkins, John Mellon, Gary Severin
and Mandy Weisenberg
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Roach v. Pembroke Police Service
1This is an Application filed on March 12, 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 states in her Application that the facts of the Application are part of another proceeding still in progress. She indicates that a grievance had been filed on her behalf by her union, the Pembroke Police Association, but that she does not wish to defer her Application until the grievance is completed. The applicant provides with her Application a copy of a grievance dated March 14, 2010. This grievance very clearly alleges that the applicant has been subject to discriminatory treatment in violation of the collective agreement and the Code and refers to many of the issues raised by the applicant in her Application. The grievance asks for remedies for discrimination under section 46 of the Code. The respondent’s request, as part of their Response, that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant’s March 14, 2010 grievance.
3On July 21, 2010 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to indicate that she could file submissions in response to the respondents’ request to defer. The Tribunal has not received submissions from the applicant as of the date of this Interim Decision.
DECISION
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). The purpose of deferring an Application is to ensure that proceedings dealing with some or all of the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. Given this purpose, the Tribunal will generally defer an Application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.
5Having considered the circumstances of this case I order the deferral of the applicant’s Application pending the conclusion of the grievance process. I am satisfied that a grievance process is currently proceeding which appears to be based in large measure on the issues raised in the Application. If the grievance proceeds 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).
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.
Dated at Toronto, this 1^st^ day of December, 2010.
“Signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair