Iona Gordon v. Leisureworld Caregiving Centre - Mississauga, 2011 HRTO 577

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Iona Gordon Applicant

-and-

Leisureworld Caregiving Centre - Mississauga, Gary Butt, Rebecca Turner and Michael Bastian Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith Date: March 23, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 577 Indexed as: Gordon v. Leisureworld Caregiving Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Leisureworld Caregiving Centre - Mississauga, ) Jeffrey Wood, Gary Butt, Rebecca Turner and ) Representative Michael Bastian, Respondents )

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed December 7, 2010, pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the Code). The respondents filed a Response on February 16, 2011.

2This Interim Decision deals with a Request to Defer by the respondents by which the Application would be deferred pending the outcome of the ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process undertaken by the parties.

3The Registrar delivered the Notice of Tribunal Intent to Defer to the applicant on February 23, 2011. In that correspondence the applicant was advised that written submissions with regard to the Request to Defer must be filed with the Tribunal by March 9, 2011.

4No submissions regarding the Request to Defer were received from the applicant.

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 at para. 10; 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 (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: 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 and her union on January 4, 2011, 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.