Minogue v. The Peel District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1919

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Debra Minogue

Applicant

-and-

The Peel District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: November 21, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1919

Indexed as: Minogue v. The Peel District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Debra Minogue, Applicant ) Self-represented

The Peel District School Board, Respondent ) Roy Filion, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on July 31, 2013 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, CH.19 as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

2The applicant noted in the Application that she has on-going grievances that “directly relate” to the respondent’s alleged actions.

3On September 22, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the Application to include new allegations of reprisal.

4The respondent filed its Form 2 Response on September 26, 2013 wherein it asked the Tribunal to defer the Application. The respondent points out that the allegations made in the Application are also the basis of the applicant’s two grievances which are currently proceeding to arbitration. In addition, the respondent raises issues of delay and abuse of process.

5The applicant filed a Reply on November 6, 2013 and asserts that the respondent’s request to defer is a tactic to unreasonably delay the Application.

DECISION

6The 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.

7The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. See Blackman v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2009 HRTO 970 at para. 5. 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 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.

8Both parties appear to agree that there are outstanding grievances which overlap with the issues raised in this Application. It appears that two grievances are presently proceeding to arbitration. In these circumstances deferral is appropriate.

9Where 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).

10In conclusion, the Tribunal orders the deferral of this Application pending the resolution or completion of the two grievances. As such, at this stage of process, it is not necessary to address the respondent’s request to dismiss because of delay and abuse of process and the applicant’s request to amend.

11I am not seized of this matter.