Beverley Horodnyk v. Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2011 HRTO 527

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Beverley Horodnyk Applicant

-and-

Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology, Rita McGillivray and Sandra Murphy Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith Date: March 16, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 527 Indexed as: Horodnyk v. Centennial College

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed December 16, 2010, pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2This Interim Decision deals with whether the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

3The Registrar delivered the Notice of Tribunal Intent to Defer to the applicant and respondents on February 3, 2011. The parties were directed that written submissions in response must be filed with the Tribunal by March 7, 2011.

4Submissions were not received from any of the parties.

5Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

6While deferral is not automatic, it is granted to avoid adjudicative duplication. The Tribunal has held that some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. See Christianson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2009 HRTO 438; Groves v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 1779.

DECISION

7The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. See Blackman v. Ontario (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2009 HRTO 970 at para. 5. 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 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.

8A review of the grievance filed by the applicant reveals it is virtually identical to the subject matter of the Application.

ORDER

9In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the most fair, just and expeditious approach is to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which a party may request, in accordance to Rule 19, the Tribunal to proceed with an application after the conclusion of another process.

10I am not seized of this matter.