Sjaarda v. Ottawa Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 2184

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Barbara Sjaarda

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: November 22, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2184 Indexed as: Sjaarda v. Ottawa Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Barbara Sjaarda, Applicant

Paul Champ, Counsel

Ottawa Police Services Board, Respondent

David Patacairk, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on August 16, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, marital and family status.

BACKGROUND

2The respondent’s Response requests that those allegations which relate to incidents alleged to have been the subject of grievances in the past, or which occurred more than one year ago, be dismissed. It also requested that the Application with respect to recent incidents be deferred pending the outcome of a recently filed grievance.

DEFERRAL

The Grievance

3The respondent attached to its Response two grievances filed by the applicant, but only one is described as ongoing. The ongoing grievance claims that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of marital status when it denied her a temporary assignment in the Partner Assault Unit on the basis that the applicant’s spouse is a sergeant in that Unit. Also attached to the Response is a letter from the respondent to the applicant’s union which acknowledges the grievance and identifies the event as one that took place in the Fall of 2011.

The Application

4There does not appear to be any allegation in the Application that refers to a denial of a temporary assignment in the Fall of 2011 to the Partner Assault Unit. Also, the Application makes no allegation of discrimination because of marital status. The only allegation in the Application related to the Fall of 2011 is related to a denial of a temporary position in “West GAS” because the applicant “was not high enough on the tenure list as a result of the lack of job shadows and temporary positions [allegedly resulting from discrimination because of maternity leaves].”

Deferral denied

5Some factors that have been identified as relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are: the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the types 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 Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

6With respect to the subject matter of the grievance and the subject matter of the Application, I find no overlap in the facts. The respondent’s request to defer the Application is therefore denied.

DIRECTIONS

7The respondent is directed to indicate within two weeks of this interim decision whether it would like to participate in mediation at the Tribunal. Depending on the respondent’s answer, the Tribunal will provide Notice to the parties that either a mediation has been scheduled, or that a preliminary hearing has been scheduled to deal with whether parts of the Application should be dismissed as either out of time (s.34(1)), or dismissed as having already been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding (s.45.1).