HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mary Kate Garrity
Applicant
-and-
Ryerson University
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume
Indexed as: Garrity v. Ryerson University
1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.
2On January 25, 2012, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the parties indicating that the Tribunal had determined that it might be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of an outstanding grievance which deals with the subject-matter of the Application. The Tribunal directed the parties to deliver and file any written submissions which they wished to make in respect of the deferral issue within 14 days of the date of the Notice of Intent to Defer.
3The applicant indicates in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance proceeding that is still in progress, however, the grievance covers only the applicant’s termination and not her human rights allegations.
4The applicant did not file submissions with respect to the deferral issue in response to the Tribunal’s Notice.
5The respondent made submissions in response to the Notice and attached a copy of the grievance. The respondent argues that the Tribunal ought to defer consideration of the Application pending adjudication of the grievance on the basis that the allegations in both the Application and the grievance are essentially the same. The applicant alleges that she was unfairly denied tenure and raises the connection between that conduct and her maternity leave in both the grievance and Application. The respondent argues that the allegations advanced and the remedies sought are the same in both forums. The grievance has been referred to arbitration and the first day of hearing is currently scheduled for June 14, 2012.
6The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an Application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The Tribunal will generally defer an Application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. However, the Tribunal must also 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.
7Some, if not all, of the facts and issues raised in this Application are part of a grievance and arbitration process that is still in progress. Since the issues in the Application and the grievances overlap significantly, proceeding with the Application at the Tribunal could very possibly lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the Application and the grievance. The primary purpose of deferring an Application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. I find that, in all of the circumstances, deferring the Application is appropriate.
8The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the grievance and arbitration procedure. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca under “New Applications”.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of March, 2012.
”signed by”
Leslie Reaume
Vice-chair