Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Suzanne Young Applicant
-and-
General Motors of Canada Limited Respondent
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: July 26, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1398 Indexed as: Young v. General Motors of Canada
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code") on May 17, 2011. This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a grievance proceeding.
2On June 14, 2011, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application to the parties which advised that they had 30 days to make submissions on the issue of deferral. Though the applicant did not file any submissions, she has indicated in her Application to the Tribunal that the Application should be deferred. The respondent filed submissions and case law supporting its position that the Tribunal should defer the Application. The parties therefore consent to the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.
3The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. The terms and conditions of the applicant's employment are governed by a collective agreement between the respondent and the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 88 (the "Union"). The Union has filed a Grievance with respect to the applicant's termination from employment which has not been withdrawn.
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 Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
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).
6In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievance. It would not be constructive to have two proceedings concurrently consider the same facts as this may lead to contrary findings and decisions. Therefore, it is most fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.
7The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rule 14 which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of July, 2011.
"signed by"
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair