Monica Furac v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2015 HRTO 1169

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Monica Furac

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: September 2, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1169 Indexed as: Furac v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Monica Furac, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent

Tina Earl, Counsel

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether consideration of this Application should be deferred pending the resolution of grievances filed on behalf of the applicant.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended ("Code"). Among other things, she alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability and failed to provide reasonable accommodations. She also alleged that the respondent failed to appropriately deal with a discrimination and harassment complaint she had filed, failed to take her disability into account in its communications and interactions with her, and denied her certain employment benefits.

3In addition to filing her Application, the applicant also filed several grievances which address many if not most of the allegations contained in the Application.

4On July 29, 2015, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application as a result of the grievances which appeared to be ongoing. The Tribunal requested submissions from the parties in response to the Notice.

5The applicant opposed deferral. The respondent supported deferral on the basis that there is substantial overlap between the facts and legal issues raised in the Application and the applicant's grievances. However, the respondent noted that the applicant's union and the respondent have agreed to hold the grievances in abeyance until the applicant is medically able to return to work.

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 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure). Deferral of an Application is granted for a specific reason -- to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

7The Tribunal regularly defers consideration of applications where there is an ongoing parallel grievance filed on behalf of an applicant which raises substantially the same facts and issues as the application. However, this is only the case if the grievance is active and ongoing. It is only in such cases that there is a risk of proceedings running concurrently with the attendant risk of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. In this case, the applicant's grievances are being held in abeyance at present. There is no indication if, or when, they will ever proceed to arbitration. In these circumstances, I do not find it appropriate to defer consideration of this Application.

ORDER

8For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal will not defer consideration of this Application. This determination is made without prejudice to either party's right to request deferral in the future if the status of the applicant's grievances changes.

9The respondent is directed to file a Response to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

10I am not seized of this matter.