Milne v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 2040

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Lisa Milne

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service

Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: November 9, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 2040 Indexed as: Milne v. Toronto Police Services Board

1This is an Application filed on April 18, 2011 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19 as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and failure to accommodate as well as reprisal.

2In her Application, the applicant stated that the facts of the Application were part of another proceeding still in progress. As a result of the Applicant's allegations that she was not being properly accommodated, the Toronto Police Association ("TPA") filed a grievance which asserts, in part, that the respondents have violated the Code in relation to their treatment of the applicant.

3On August 18, 2011 the respondents filed their Response as well as a Request for Summary Hearing. In their Response the respondents have indicated that they have responded to the grievance, denying a violation of the Collective Agreement between the Toronto Police Services Board and TPA or a violation of the Code in their treatment of the applicant.

4The respondent seeks deferral of the Application on the basis that the issues in the grievance are the same as the issues raised before the Tribunal in the Application. In her Reply, the applicant opposes the deferral arguing among other things that the human rights issues that she has raised are not being effectively addressed to her satisfaction by the grievance process.

5The Tribunal generally defers applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. In adopting 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 the present matter it is apparent that there is at least a substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievance. The concerns the applicant raises do not, in my view, justify a departure from the Tribunal's normal approach, which is to defer pending conclusion of the grievance process.

7The Application will be deferred pending the resolution of the grievance.

8Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

9I am not seized.