Garrity v. Ryerson University, 2015 HRTO 460

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Kate Garrity

Applicant

-and-

Ryerson University

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: April 10, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 460

Indexed as: Garrity v. Ryerson University

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mary Kate Garrity, Applicant

Niiti Simmonds, Counsel

Ryerson University, Respondent

Simon Mortimer, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex including pregnancy and family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). In an Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 590, the Tribunal deferred consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration on the basis that "some, if not all, of the facts and issues raised in this Application are part of a grievance and arbitration process that is still in progress".

2On January 15, 2015 the arbitrator issued an award upholding the applicant's denial of tenure and termination by the respondent.

3On March 26, 2015 the applicant's counsel advised the Tribunal and parties that an application for judicial review of the arbitrator's decision had been initiated. Under these circumstances, the applicant argues that the Application should be further deferred pending the outcome of the grievance proceeding for which a judicial review has been sought.

4The respondent argues that the Tribunal should no longer defer and should determine whether the Application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code

5I am of the view that the grievance and arbitration is still in process, has not been finalized, and that it is appropriate to defer this Application until the judicial review proceedings have been finalized. This approach is consistent with Tribunal precedent. See, for example, Yunger v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 2254 and Singh v. Olymel, 2014 HRTO 223.

order

6The Application will be deferred pending the completion of the judicial review application.

7The parties' attention is directed 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 judicial review application.

8I am not seized.

9Dated at Toronto, this 10^th^ day of April, 2015.