Pauline McGuire v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre, London, 2011 HRTO 2034

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Pauline McGuire

Applicant

-and-

St. Joseph’s Health Centre, London

Respondent

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: November 9, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2034

Indexed as: McGuire v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre, London

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, on August 15, 2011.

2The Application notes that the applicant has filed a grievance, and names CAW National Automobile Aerospace, Transportation General Workers’ Union of Canada and its Local 27 as a person or organization that may be affected by this proceeding. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal sent a copy of the Application and its attachments and a Notice of Intent to Defer to the applicant, the respondent, and to the applicant’s union, asking for submissions “as to why the consideration of this Application should, or should not, be deferred” to the grievance process.

3Neither the applicant nor the applicant’s union made submissions in regard to deferral. A Response was received from the respondent. The Response confirms that the grievance was filed and that the respondent denied it. The Response also notes that the grievance asserts a violation of the Article of the relevant Collective Agreement that prohibits violations of the Code. Finally, the Response indicates that the grievance was referred to an arbitration that was scheduled for October 11, 2011.

4The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. The Tribunal’s deferral practices relating to grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues as an Application are based, in part, on the fact that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of the Code as well as other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement. See Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42.

5In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

6The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which an Application may be brought back after it has been deferred.

7I am not seized of this matter.