Hinshelwood v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, 2015 HRTO 561

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Lindsay Hinshelwood

Applicant

-and-

Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited

Respondents

-and-

Unifor Local 707

Affected Party

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: May 4, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 561 Indexed as: Hinshelwood v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. The Application was filed on January 6, 2015.

2In its Response the respondent requested that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance filed by the applicant. The respondent filed a copy of the grievance filed on September 11, 2014. In it the applicant alleges that she was unjustly terminated and that she be made whole.

3In her Application the applicant alleges that she was dismissed contrary to the Code for following her physician's medical advice.

4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that 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.

5However the Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts. 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).

6In any case where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising all or some of the same issues before a decision-making body with the authority to make determinations about those issues, the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the other proceeding. In such a scenario, the Tribunal's normal approach is to defer to the other proceeding not least to an ongoing grievance arbitration.

7The applicant opposed deferral arguing that the request is premature as it is not clear whether or not the grievance will raise any human rights issues.

8In my view it is appropriate that this Application be deferred. The Application alleges a discriminatory dismissal from employment. The grievance alleges an unjust dismissal. The issues in the case, at least to the extent that the applicant's complaint relates to her dismissal, are sufficiently similar such that the orderly administration of justice requires that the Application be deferred.

9The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

10The Tribunal directs the parties' attention 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. The other matters raised by the respondent and the affected party will be dealt with by the Tribunal if the Application is brought back on.

11I am not seized of this case.