Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Charlene Parker
Applicant
-and-
The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, Dara Marcoccia and Rohan Abbey
Respondents
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: July 23, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1281 Indexed as: Parker v. Mississauga (City)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Charlene Parker, Applicant: Self-represented
INTERIM DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1This Application was filed on June 8, 2010, under s. 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), and alleges discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability and sex in employment, and reprisal.
2In an Interim Decision dated March 6, 2013, 2013 HRTO 383 [CHRR Doc. 13-0883], the Tribunal determined that deferral of this Application pending completion of the applicant's workplace grievance was not appropriate.
3In correspondence dated April 8 and 18, 2013, the applicant requested that the Tribunal reconsider its decision to not defer this Application, and, on April 26, 2013, the applicant delivered and filed a Request for Reconsideration.
DECISION
4Under s. 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal's Rules:
45.7(1)
Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.
(2)
Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.
5The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests. Most relevant to the applicant's request is Rule 26.1 which states:
26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision
6Clearly, the Tribunal's Rules provide that a party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. The applicant, in this case, seeks reconsideration of an Interim Decision to not defer the Application pending completion of her workplace grievance. A decision will only be considered a final decision where the decision has the effect of finally determining the substance of the dispute or a central element of the dispute between the parties. See for example Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Ontario Teachers' Federation, 1994 CanLII 10578 (ON CTGD), 19 OR (3d) 371 and Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Inc., 2013 HRTO 1007 [CHRR Doc. 13-1507].
7The Tribunal, in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34 [CHRR Doc. 08-356], considered the question of when a decision should be considered final for the purposes of reconsideration, and concluded as follows:
As a general principle, having regard to the approach taken in other forums as well as the above discussion, it is reasonable to view a "final decision" as one that disposes of some or all of the central issues in the complaint as between the parties. This general principle will take on a more precise shape as the Tribunal applies it to cases before it.
8In the present case, I find that the Tribunal's Interim Decision to not defer the Application is not a final decision for the purposes of the Tribunal's reconsideration power as the decision to not defer the Application does not dispose of any issues in the Application. In my view, however, there may be circumstances where it is appropriate for the Tribunal to consider a new request for deferral, or a new request that a matter be held in abeyance, particularly where circumstances have changed. In any event, having considered the applicant's submissions, including those contained in her Request for Reconsideration, I do not find any basis upon which it would be appropriate to vary the Tribunal's earlier Interim Decision to not defer this Application pending completion of the applicant's workplace grievance.
9In its Interim Decision dated March 6, 2013, the Tribunal stated as follows at paras. 8 and 9:
. . . In her grievance dated July 20, 2012, the applicant grieves the termination of her employment as unfair and unjust. A letter to the applicant from the City dated July 19, 2012 indicates that her employment is being terminated following an incident with a customer on March 27, 2012.
The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. In the present case, however, there does not appear to be an ongoing grievance dealing with the same facts and issues as the Application. The applicant alleges in her Application that she was subjected to discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability and sex, including a poisoned work environment, and reprisal, while employed with the City. The applicant's grievance, on the other hand, concerns the termination of her employment more than two years after her Application with the Tribunal was filed. In the circumstances, there appears to be little possibility, if any, of inconsistent decisions in concurrent proceedings. I find that deferral is not appropriate.
10In her submissions requesting reconsideration, the applicant essentially argues that the Tribunal's Interim Decision to not defer this Application is based upon the belief that the Application and the applicant's termination of employment with the organizational respondent are separate and distinct matters. The applicant submits that, despite the appearance of two separate issues, there is a causal link between the two matters. The applicant's submissions essentially repeat submissions that the applicant made earlier when addressing the issue of deferral, and are referred to in the Tribunal's Interim Decision dated March 6, 2013.
11In the circumstances, the applicant has not provided any basis upon which it would be appropriate to vary the Tribunal's earlier Interim Decision to not defer this Application pending completion of the applicant's workplace grievance. For all of the above reasons, the applicant's request that the Tribunal reconsider its March 6, 2013 Interim Decision is dismissed.
12The Tribunal will be in contact with the parties shortly to reschedule hearing dates.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of July, 2013.
"Signed by"
__________________________________
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair