D.C. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1608

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

D.C.

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: August 22, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1608

Indexed as: C. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

2The applicant alleges that she was sexually assaulted at work on or about April 12, 2011. The subject-matter of the Application is the allegation that the applicant’s employer failed to accommodate her return to work following the assault. Those allegations are also the subject of a WSIB claim and a grievance, both of which are currently ongoing. With respect to the WSIB claim, the applicant was successful and the respondent is pursuing an appeal. With respect to the grievance, the parties participated in a grievance meeting on April 5, 2012 and the process is ongoing. There is also a criminal proceeding which has not yet been completed.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer dated June 19, 2012 to the parties and the applicant’s union, Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1328 (“CUPE”), which has been identified as an affected party. A copy of the Application was attached to the Notice although the respondent was not required to file a Response. CUPE is also seeking intervenor status in the Application before the Tribunal.

4The applicant did not file submissions in response to the Notice. The respondent filed submissions supporting the deferral and noting that the subject-matter of the Application is the same as the subject-matter of the grievance. There are no allegations made by the applicant that her union is failing in any way to advance the grievance on her behalf.

5Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the request of a party, defer consideration of an application after providing notice of its intention to do so to all parties and giving them an opportunity to make submissions. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law (See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, 2008 HRTO 404). The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

[6] In this case I am satisfied that it would be fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process. Given my decision, it is not necessary to consider deferral on the basis of the WSIB proceeding. With respect to the request to intervene by CUPE, that request will be dealt with if and when the Application brought back on.

7The 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

8I am not seized.