Williams v. Benteler Automotive Canada, 2010 HRTO 297

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Ria Williams Applicant

• and -

Benteler Automotive Canada, Bill Maurais, Carl Fan, Doreen Henschel, Jeff Qui-Yu, Michelle Coulter and Sean Bates Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: February 9, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 297 Indexed as: Williams v. Benteler Automotive Canada

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on April 27, 2009, alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability, age and association with a person identified by a Code protected ground.

2In an Interim Decision dated October 6, 2009, 2009 HRTO 1608, the Tribunal ordered that this Application be deferred pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings which deal with some or all of the same facts underlying the Application. The Tribunal directed the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which a party may request, in accordance to Rule 19, the Tribunal to proceed with an application after the conclusion of another process.

3The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings on November 30, 2009 (the "Request") to reactivate the Application because the corporate respondent "has refused to deal with any of the outstanding grievances within the timeframe contracted to the collective agreement." The applicant argues that the respondents' failure to abide by timeframes provided by the collective agreement caused "the time to expire on all the grievances," and consequently, "the grievance procedure… has expired." Part of the collective agreement was attached to the applicant's Request, but the applicant provides no further particulars.

4In their Response to the Request filed December 14, 2009 (the "Response"), the respondents take the position that the Tribunal should not re-activate the deferred Application because the corporate respondent and the applicant's union, who are the parties to the grievances, have agreed that they are still live. The Response indicates that step three meetings are underway, and that the union would afterwards have recourse to step four of the grievance process. The respondents state that the time limits referenced by the applicant's Request are not engaged until after step four.

5The union was sent a copy of the applicant's Request. No submissions were received from the union.

6Having made the decision to defer, the Tribunal will not proceed with an Application simply because a party feels that the other proceeding is not moving along quickly enough, unless the other proceeding has concluded. Franks v. Financial Services Commission of Ontario, 2009 HRTO 1119.

7It does not appear that the grievance proceedings have concluded, and accordingly, the applicant's Request is denied.

8I am not seized of this matter.