Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Suzanne Daoust
Applicant
-and-
Health Sciences North, Jessica Diplock and Tracy Laginski
Respondents
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1623
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Date: February 18, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 216
Indexed as: Daoust v. Health Sciences North
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Suzanne Daoust, Applicant
Self-represented
Health Sciences North, Jessica Diplock and Tracy Laginski, Respondents
Diane Barbeau, Representative
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2In its response the respondents seek the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance procedure. The applicant opposes deferral. The Intervenor has filed no submissions on the issue of the deferral of the Application.
Decision
3The 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). The Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
4Applying these principles to this case, I find that it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration proceedings. 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. 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 and other employment-related statutes 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).
5In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievances. It would not be constructive to have two proceedings consider concurrently the same facts as this may lead to contrary findings and decisions. Therefore, it is most fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.
6The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of February, 2015.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair