Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Salina Larocque Applicant
-and-
Srimoyee Mitra and Catharine Mastin Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: September 6, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1171 Indexed as: Larocque v. Mitra
APPEARANCES
Salina Larocque, Applicant David Deluzio, Counsel
Srimoyee Mitra and Catharine Mastin, Respondents Anna Vannelli, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The respondents are the applicant's supervisor and Director at the Art Gallery of Windsor. The Tribunal deferred this Application pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding addressing a grievance filed on the applicant's behalf by her union.
2On October 21, 2015, the applicant's union and the Art Gallery of Windsor entered into a settlement of the grievance. The settlement was signed by a representative of the Art Gallery, a union representative and the applicant.
3On December 21, 2015, the applicant filed a request to reactivate her deferred Application. The Tribunal granted the request and directed that a preliminary hearing be held to hear the parties' submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code or as an abuse of process due to the settlement signed by the applicant.
4The preliminary hearing was held by telephone conference call on August 30, 2016. I heard submissions from the applicant and the respondents.
5For the reasons stated below, the Application is dismissed.
section 45.1 and abuse of process
6It is not necessary to consider the issue as to whether this Application is an "abuse of process". Section 45.1 of the Code states:
The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
7The applicant engaged in the grievance process, which clearly addressed the "substance" of her Application to the Tribunal, namely, creed related discrimination in the workplace. It was resolved on terms acceptable to the applicant who signed the settlement. It does not matter that the grievance was settled, as opposed to concluded by way of an arbitration decision. As noted by the Tribunal in Dunn v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 2008 HRTO 149 at para. 37:
...Most litigation ends in settlement. To be effective, settlements must be final, since otherwise the parties would have no incentive to make an agreement to end litigation. An interpretation of s. 45.1 that did not cover settlements would discourage parties from working to resolve human rights proceedings without recourse to litigation.
8The applicant has not pointed to a factor that would suggest that she should not be bound by this resolution.
9In my view another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.
10I appreciate that the applicant would have liked to continue the deferral of the Application pending the resolution of subsequent applications filed by the applicant regarding alleged ongoing discrimination in the workplace. However, this is not a basis for me to not exercise my discretion under s. 45.1.
order
11The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of September, 2016.
"Signed By"
__________________________________
Keith Brennenstuhl Vice-chair