Poste v. Metro Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 93

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sandra Poste

Applicant

-and-

Metro Ontario Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie

Date: January 16, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 93

Indexed as: Poste v. Metro Ontario Inc.

wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Metro Ontario Inc., Respondent ) William Hill, Representative

CAW, Interested Party ) Doug Orr, Representative

1Sandra Poste has filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status. She alleges that her pregnancy has not been appropriately accommodated by her employer, Metro Ontario. The applicant is a unionized employee and represented by the CAW-Canada. This Interim Decision addresses the request of the respondent and the union to defer the Application pending the outcome of a grievance proceeding.

2The applicant did not provide a response to the request for deferral.

3In her Application, the applicant states that she has filed a grievance but that she is not hopeful of its outcome. From a review of her Application and the grievance, it appears that the grievance relates to the same facts and issues raised in the Application.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4The 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. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

5The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that grievance arbitrators have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).

6In this case, the Application and the grievance are based on the same facts and issues between the parties. The applicant has not disputed this. Her views on the possible outcome of the grievance procedure are premature.

7I must now consider whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application in the circumstances of this case. Although it is not clear from the submissions of the respondent and the union what the status of the grievance is, it is likely to proceed before a hearing can be scheduled for the Application. As noted above, the applicant did not respond to the request for deferral and therefore has not identified any particular circumstance that would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach. I therefore conclude that it is fair, just and expeditious to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance.

8Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

9Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

10I am not seized.