Angela Lichacz v. Ornge Corporation and Les Cleverly, 2010 HRTO 2531

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Lichacz

Applicant

-and-

Ornge Corporation and Les Cleverly

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: December 23, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2531

Indexed as: Lichacz v. Ornge ______________________________________________________________________

1This is an Application filed on October 1, 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 that is still in progress, and has provided a copy of the grievance filed on her behalf by her union, Ontario Public Service Employees Union Local 505 (the “union”).

3On November 8, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application. It was sent to the parties and to the union and the letter indicated they had 30 days to make written submissions on the issue of deferral. Although the union sent in correspondence on December 7, 2010, asking to be copied on all correspondence as an affected party, neither it nor the parties have made any submissions on the issue of deferral.

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 (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 some overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievance. The matter is still live and the grievance process has not concluded. The applicant indicates the arbitration in this matter is scheduled for March 3, 2011. If the applicant believes, on conclusion of the process, that her human rights issues have not been adequately addressed, she may ask to have her Application brought back on before the Tribunal.

8The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

9The 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.