Gigler v. Sheridan Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 2014 HRTO 564

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christine Gigler

Applicant

-and-

Sheridan Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning

Respondent

-and-

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Affected Party

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: April 23, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 564

Indexed as: Gigler v. Sheridan Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Christine Gigler, Applicant

Wade Poziomka, Counsel

Sheridan Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Respondent

Patricia Murray, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a grievance proceeding.

2By Application filed January 13, 2014, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).

3The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application because the allegations raised in the Application have become part of a grievance filed by the applicant’s union on her behalf.

4The applicant consented to the deferral. However, she sought that the Tribunal attach the following conditions to the deferral:

a. If the grievance procedure appropriately deals with the substance of the Application, the Application shall be withdrawn;

b. If the grievance is withdrawn, settled by the union without the applicant’s approval, or should the arbitrator fail to appropriately deal with the substance of the Application, the Application shall be re-activated upon receipt of a Request for Order During Proceedings.

analysis

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues.

6In light of the applicant’s consent to deferral, I find it appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding. I do not find it appropriate to attach the conditions requested by the applicant. The issues raised by the applicant can be addressed by the Tribunal in accordance with applicable law if she requests that her Application be reactivated once the grievance proceeding has concluded or is no longer ongoing.

7If the applicant believes, on conclusion of the grievance process or once it is no longer ongoing, that her human rights issues have not been appropriately dealt with, she may ask to have her Application brought back on before the Tribunal. The 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. The parties should note that a request to reactivate must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the grievance process.