Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Mary Rossi
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto Court Services Division – York Civic Center, Susan Garossino and Barry Randell
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Rossi v. City of Toronto Court Services Division-York Civic Center
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Mary Rossi, Applicant
Self-represented
City of Toronto Court Services Division – York Civic Center, Susan Garossino and Barry Randell, Respondents
Zoya Trofimenko, Counsel
1The applicant filed this Application on April 22, 2013 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, (the "Code") as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of age and disability.
2The applicant alleges differential treatment with respect to discipline and dismissal. The applicant provided a copy of a workplace grievance, dated December 2012, seeking her compensation and reinstatement for the alleged unfair dismissal.
3The respondents filed a Response on July 9, 2013 denying the allegations. In the Response, the respondents request that the Tribunal defer the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance filed by the applicant.
4The applicant filed a Reply opposing deferral on the basis that both proceedings should be dealt with independently.
DEFERRAL
5The 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.
6Some 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.
7The Tribunal generally defers applications where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding, particularly when the other proceeding is an on-going grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues as raised in the Application. In so doing, the Tribunal has relied on Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42, wherein the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed 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.
8I see no basis to depart from the Tribunal's regular approach to defer an application where the application overlaps with an active grievance. Based on the parties' materials, it appears that the grievance process remains outstanding. The applicant's grievance appears to pertain to the same alleged incidents which are set out in the Application and the applicant seeks similar remedies in both matters.
9In the interest of efficiency and to avoid concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal will defer this Application pending the completion of the grievance process.
ORDER
10The Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.
11Where 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).
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of August, 2013.
"signed by"
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair