Sandra Edwards v. Toronto Police Services Board and William Blair, 2013 HRTO 1883

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sandra Edwards

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and William Blair

Respondents

-and-

Toronto Police Association

Affected Party

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: November 12, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1883 Indexed as: Edwards v. Toronto Police Services Board

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). By Interim Decision dated September 13, 2013, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding: 2013 HRTO 1543. On October 23, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding requesting that the deferred Application be reactivated (the “Request”).

2In support of the Request the applicant states that she attended a meeting on May 24, 2013, with regard to the Toronto Police Association’s grievance claim on her behalf. The applicant submits that a final decision of “dismissed and denied” was handed down by a representative of Toronto Police Services. Since that meeting the applicant states that she has been unsuccessful in her attempts to find out what the next step is from the Toronto Police Association. The applicant attaches communication between the Association and the applicant (the most recent of which is an email sent September 30, 2013) in which she seeks clarification of the status.

3On November 5, 2013, the respondent Toronto Police Services Board (the “Board”) filed a response. The Board is opposed to reactivation, characterizing the applicant’s request as an “appeal” of the Interim Decision. The Board states that the grievance is advancing through the grievance procedure and files supporting documentation, including a letter of the Association dated October 11, 2013, which reflects that the Association has requested the appointment of a Conciliation Officer for the grievance in question and the acknowledgement of the same by the respondent.

4The Request to reactivate is denied.

5Based on the material filed it is apparent that the grievance is still in process. While the applicant appears to have been uninformed about the status of the grievance, the Board’s response clarifies the status.

6The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.