Saunders v. University of Ottawa, 2015 HRTO 583

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michelle Saunders

Applicant

-and-

University of Ottawa

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: May 6, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 583

Indexed as: Saunders v. University of Ottawa

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michelle Saunders, Applicant

Self-represented

University of Ottawa, Respondent

David Bolger, Counsel

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether consideration of this Application should be deferred pending the resolution of a grievance 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"). Specifically, she alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability in performance evaluations and that it failed to accommodate her disability up to the time her employment was terminated on February 18, 2014.

3The parties entered into a Letter of Agreement in November 2013. They agreed that the applicant would remain an employee of the respondent until February 18, 2014. They also agreed that the applicant would be considered an "internal candidate" for positions posted in her bargaining unit for a period of one year. The applicant applied for a position in May 2014 and was unsuccessful. She filed a grievance alleging that the respondent failed to respect the Letter of Agreement due to the reference letter it provided her for the position.

4In its Response, the respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of the grievance. According to the respondent, it has contacted the lawyer for the applicant's union to select an arbitrator and dates for arbitration.

5In her Reply, the applicant opposed deferral, submitting that the Application and the grievance address two separate issues.

6The Tribunal scheduled a mediation in this case and advised the parties that the Tribunal would consider the deferral request if the parties did not reach a settlement of the Application in mediation.

7Mediation was unsuccessful.

Decision

8The 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 seeks 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.

9The Tribunal regularly defers consideration of Applications where a parallel grievance has been filed on behalf of an applicant. However, this is only the case if the grievance raises the same or similar issues or facts such that proceeding with the Application could give rise to inconsistent decisions. I do not find that to be the case here. The Application pertains to the time period up to the end of the applicant's employment on February 18, 2014. Meanwhile, the grievance relates to the events surrounding the applicant's subsequent job application in the spring of 2014. Even if the events challenged in the grievance are related to the events set out in the Application, they are distinct. As a result, I do not find that deferral is appropriate in this case.

ORDER

10For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal denies the respondent's request to defer consideration of the Application. The Registrar shall schedule a two-day hearing for the Application.

11I am not seized of this matter.