Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Corinne Croft
Applicant
-and-
The Corporation of the City of London
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price
Date: April 24, 2012
Citation: 2012 HRTO 838
Indexed as: Croft v. London (City)
[1] This is an Application filed on January 30, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability with respect to employment. In particular, the applicant alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate her disability-related needs in the workplace commencing in February 2011.
[2] The applicant requests that the Tribunal defer consideration of her Application, pending the conclusion of a grievance and arbitration process in respect of two outstanding grievances which, she submits, raise some or all of the same facts and issues as the Application.
[3] The respondent supports the applicant’s request to defer.
[4] The 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 ensures that proceedings dealing with the same 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.
[5] The facts and issues in this Application appear to be the same as those in the applicant’s February 2011 grievances. Given the significant overlap between the Application and the February 2011 grievances, proceeding with the Application while the grievance arbitration procedure is ongoing could very possibly lead to inconsistent decisions on the factual and/or legal issues raised in the Application and the grievance. The primary purpose of deferring an Application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. In all of the circumstances, deferring the Application is appropriate.
[6] The Tribunal orders the deferral of this Application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process in respect of the applicant’s grievances. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure available at www.hrto.ca, which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the grievance arbitration has been concluded.
[7] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of April, 2012.
“Signed by”
Sheri Price
Vice-chair