HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Leah Graziano-Mooney Applicant
-and-
York Police Services Board Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: May 15, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 643 Indexed as: Graziano-Mooney v. York Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Leah Graziano-Mooney, Applicant Self-represented
York Police Services Board, Respondent Stephen Maio, Counsel
1On April 24, 2015, The Tribunal directed the parties to file submissions on the issue of deferring the Application.
2The respondent has filed submissions in support of deferring the Application. The respondents submit that the applicant’s Union has filed a grievance with respect to her recent termination from employment in which she seeks to be reinstated. The applicant has filed submissions, but she does not address the issue of deferral.
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 arbitration proceeding. 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, I have considered that the Application does not address the applicant’s termination from employment, which is the subject-matter of the grievance. However, in my view there is sufficient overlap between the Application and the grievance, including that the grievance proceeding may address issues related to the applicant’s disability which may overlap with determinations that this Tribunal may have to make. Further, there are potential remedial issues which may arise in the event that the applicant is reinstated to her employment as sought in the grievance. I find that 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.
6In light of the fact that the Application is deferred, the Tribunal will not address the parties’ outstanding Requests for orders.
7The 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.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 15^th^ day of May, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair