Sherry-Ann Quashie v. City of Toronto and Birgit Maxseiner, 2014 HRTO 924

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sherry-Ann Quashie Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto and Birgit Maxseiner Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: June 23, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 924
Indexed as: Quashie v. Toronto (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sherry-Ann Quashie, Applicant
Self-represented

City of Toronto and Birgit Maxseiner, Respondents
Justin Basinger, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is deferring consideration of this Application, which alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of ethnic origin, disability, creed and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Reprisal is also alleged.

2The applicant works for the corporate respondent. She alleges that she has been discriminated against by the corporate respondent’s managers, including the personal respondent, and has been subjected to intimidation and reprisal since having raised the issue of discrimination.

3The applicant’s union has filed two grievances on her behalf that allege violations of the Code. A remedy sought in one of the grievances is a declaration that the Code has been breached. The grievances are currently being considered by the union’s executive to determine whether they will be referred to arbitration. The issues raised by the grievances appear to be the same as the issues raised in this Application, and there is overlap in the kinds of remedies requested in the two proceedings.

4The respondent argues for deferral until the end of the grievance procedure because of the overlap of facts and issues in both proceedings. The applicant says that this Application should not be deferred because the grievance proceedings have been going on since 2011 and are taking too long.

5The grievances were in abeyance for two years because the applicant was away from work on maternity leave for a year, followed by a year when she took a leave of absence.

6The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve allegations of discrimination brought before it.

7In this case there is a substantial overlap of facts and issues between the grievances the ones raised in this Application. If the union decides to refer the grievances to arbitration, then an arbitrator would have the authority to address the alleged Code violations.

8This overlap of facts and issues is sufficient reason to exercise discretion in favour of deferral. Deferral avoids the risk of inconsistent findings being made by the Tribunal and an arbitrator if both proceedings were allowed to go ahead at the same time. While I understand that the applicant is concerned about how long the grievance procedure has taken so far, it is clear that the grievances are being dealt with actively now and have reached the last stage in the grievance process before mediation and, if that fails, arbitration.

order

9The Application is deferred pending resolution of the grievance procedure.

10The parties’ attention is directed to Tribunal Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure by which a party may seek to bring the Application back on after the conclusion of the other proceedings.