Bradshaw v. Complex Services Inc., 2012 HRTO 1918

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Chris-Ann Bradshaw Applicant

-and-

Complex Services Inc. o/a Niagara Fallsview Casino Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: October 9, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1918 Indexed as: Bradshaw v. Complex Services Inc.

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. The Application names the applicant’s employer and alleges a failure to accommodate the applicant’s disability.

2The applicant filed a concurrent Application, naming her union, OPSEU. That Application, in Tribunal file 2012-11757-I, has been deferred because there is an ongoing proceeding at the Ontario Labour Relations Board involving substantially the same facts as those involved in that Application.

3The present Application is one of a series of Applications the applicant has filed against her employer and her union. These include two “transitional” Applications filed under section 53(5) of the Code. Those Applications, TR-0819-09 and TR-0820-09, have been deferred pending the resolution of various grievances that have been filed. While some of the grievances have been resolved, others are apparently ongoing.

4After receiving the present Application, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because it appeared from the Application that there are ongoing grievance procedures. The Application indicates that there are two grievances that are scheduled to be considered and five grievances that are waiting for arbitration dates. The grievances appear to generally relate to the ongoing disputes between the parties regarding accommodation of the applicant’s disability. The parties were invited to make submissions on the deferral issue. The respondent has filed submissions supporting deferral. The applicant has not filed submissions on the deferral issue and the time for doing so has now passed.

5The essential question to be answered when there are ongoing grievances is whether deferral is fair and just, considering all of the circumstances. Deferral of an Application when there are ongoing related grievances means that the parties are not required to participate in parallel proceedings concerning the same factual history. The grievance procedures may resolve the Code-related issues between the parties. If they do not, the parties have the option of applying to the Tribunal to have the Application re-activated so that the Tribunal can determine if the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt with. If there are remaining Code-related issues the Application can then be dealt with by the Tribunal.

6In this case there appear to be a large number of grievances underway at different stages. In addition, the applicant has started proceedings at the OLRB. The Application notes that the earlier Transition Applications have been deferred on more than one occasion and the applicant has suggested that it may be unfair for her Applications to be deferred indefinitely. I note that in the Transition files, the Tribunal Registrar has directed the parties to provide an update on the status of grievances relevant to those Applications by June 30, 2013.

7I conclude that the present Application in Tribunal file 2012-11755-I should be deferred pending resolution of related grievances. By June 30, 2013, the parties to the present Application are directed to provide an update to the Tribunal of the status of all outstanding grievances and other related proceedings.

8It also appears appropriate to consider consolidating the Transitional Applications, the present Application, and the Application against the union, so that they can be considered and processed together. By June 30, 2013, any party that opposes consolidation of the Applications may make submissions explaining why the Applications should not be consolidated. If no party objects, the Tribunal will consolidate the Applications.