Billie Jo Ramey v. ORNGE, 2015 HRTO 1747

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Billie Jo Ramey

Applicant

-and-

ORNGE

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: December 30, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1747

Indexed as: Ramey v. ORNGE

1This Application, which alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), was filed on December 15, 2014.

2In Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 188, issued on February 10, 2015, this Application was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration commenced by the applicant and her bargaining agent.

3The applicant has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking, among other things, the reactivation of the Application, citing concerns about new incidents of alleged discrimination that she says have occurred subsequent to filing her Application. The respondent is opposed to the Request, arguing that the arbitration is scheduled to commence in mid-February 2016. Moreover, it states that the applicant has filed new grievances addressing the ongoing issues, and that these subsequent grievances have been consolidated with the grievance to which this process was deferred and will be addressed by the arbitrator.

4It would not be appropriate to reactivate this Application. As the Tribunal concluded when deferring the Application, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and issues raised in the Application and those referred to in the grievance the applicant had commenced. The Tribunal was satisfied that the circumstances of the present case did not justify a departure from the Tribunal’s normal approach. The fact that the applicant’s additional issues will also be addressed in the grievance process further militates against reactivating this Application and addressing the applicant’s request to amend.

5For these reasons the Application will continue to be deferred until the arbitration proceeding has concluded.

6The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention again 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.

7I am not seized of this case.