HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Vera Geiger
Applicant
-and-
St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital, Paul Collins, Laura Pavilonis, Anita Grant, Christine Thompson and Charlene Simon-Freeman
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Geiger v. St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital
1This is an Application filed on August 31, 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 his behalf by his union, The Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union (the “union”). Dates were scheduled for the grievance proceeding in November and December 2011.
3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer (“NOID”) on October 21, 2011. Although afforded an opportunity to do so, none of the interested parties responded to the NOID.
4The 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 stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.
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. See 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 grievance. In the absence of any submission to the contrary I am satisfied that it would be fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application pending the completion of the arbitration process. 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 a party may seek to bring the Application back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of December, 2011.
”signed by”_____________
David Muir
Vice-chair