Miriam Grandison v. Region of Peel, 2011 HRTO 2047

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Miriam Grandison

Applicant

-and-

Region of Peel

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: November 9, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2047

Indexed as: Grandison v. Region of Peel

1This is an Application filed on July 6, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of age and race. The Application was delivered to the respondent and to the applicant’s union, CUPE, which was identified as an organization that may be affected by the Application. 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 series of union grievances that are still in progress, and encloses a copy of the grievances filed on her behalf by CUPE.

3On September 29, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer further consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the grievance procedure.

4The respondent replied and indicated that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer further consideration of the Application, pending the resolution of the grievance procedure. CUPE also replied and agreed that deferral is appropriate. The applicant did not reply to the Notice of Intent to Defer and the time for doing so has now passed.

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

6The Supreme Court thus confirmed that human rights tribunals are not the only decision-makers that can decide human rights claims. Where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising the same human rights issues before a decision-making body with the authority to make determinations about those issues, the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the other proceeding. In such a scenario, the Tribunal’s normal approach is to defer to the other proceeding.

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 grievances. According to the reply from CUPE, the grievances are currently before an arbitrator. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to defer further consideration of the Application until the grievance proceedings are concluded.

8The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

9Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.