Mark v. William Osler Health System, 2016 HRTO 719

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Helen Mark

Applicant

-and-

William Osler Health System, Dominic NTI, Harpal Panesar,

Susan Stark, Melanie Calhoun, Melanie Pacheco, Annette Branch,

Michelle Hunter and Kelly Enair

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: May 26, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 719

Indexed as: Mark v. William Osler Health System

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Helen Mark, Applicant

Self-represented

William Osler Health System, Dominic Nti, Harpal Panesar, Susan Stark, Melanie Calhoun, Melanie Pacheco, Annette Branch, Michelle Hunter and Kelly Enair, Respondents

Patricia Murray, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The respondents request that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application because the matter is the subject of a union grievance arbitration procedure under a collective agreement.

3The applicant does not deny that the matter is subject to a grievance procedure but states that it is a policy grievance and that it does not solely affect the applicant.

4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of a party (Rule 14.1). 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. The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is ongoing grievance proceedings based on the same facts and issues. However, the Tribunal must also consider whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

5Although it appears that the union filed a policy, rather than an individual, grievance, and it does not raise every allegation that is raised in the Application to the Tribunal, some of the facts and issues raised in this Application are part of the grievance proceeding. Since the issues in the Application and the grievance proceeding overlap, proceeding with the Application at the Tribunal could very well lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the Application and the grievance proceeding. The primary purpose of deferring an application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. I find that, in all of the circumstances, deferring the Application to the completion of the grievance proceeding is appropriate.

6The parties' attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

7I am not seized.