Colleen O’Reilly v. Regional Municipality of Durham – Durham Region EMS, 2011 HRTO 1975

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Colleen O’Reilly Applicant

-and-

Regional Municipality of Durham – Durham Region EMS Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: November 1, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1975 Indexed as: O’Reilly v. Regional Municipality of Durham

1This is an Application filed on June 23, 2011 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 encloses a copy of the grievance filed on her behalf by her union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees. (CUPE). The Application was delivered to the respondent and to CUPE.

3On August 16, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer further consideration of the Application until the completion of the grievance procedure.

4The applicant did not respond to the Notice of Intent to Defer and the time for doing so has now passed. The respondent advised that it agrees that the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance process. CUPE advised that it takes no position on whether the Application should be deferred.

ANALYSIS

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1).

6The Tribunal has generally deferred Applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues

7In 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. There are no circumstances that would suggest that the Tribunal should depart from its usual approach when there is a grievance based on the same facts and issues as those that gave rise to the Application. The applicant has not opposed deferral. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

8The 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.

9I am not seized of this matter.