Michelle George v. The Regional Municipality of Peel, 2017 HRTO 1078

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michelle George Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Peel Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky Date: August 17, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1078 Indexed as: George v. Peel (Regional Municipality)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michelle George, Applicant Self-represented

The Regional Municipality of Peel, Respondent Michelle Wong, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings in this case.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code").

3In addition to filing this Application, the applicant filed grievances with her union. The grievances were held in abeyance pending an investigation by the respondent. The respondent has advised that the investigation is now complete and the grievances will proceed through the grievance procedure.

4By Notice of Intent to Defer dated May 24, 2017, the Tribunal proposed to defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

5The applicant filed additional submissions on June 4, 2017, but did not address the deferral issue. The respondent submitted that the "most fair, just and expeditious" approach would be to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

FINDINGS

6The 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 generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. The reason for this is that grievance arbitrators have, not only the power, but also the responsibility to enforce human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of a collective agreement. See Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42.

7In this case, I find it appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings. The applicant has alleged discrimination because of disability in both her Application and grievances, and on the basis of the same actions by the respondent. Given the noted case law, I find it reasonable to defer the Application pending the completion of the grievance proceedings.

8If the applicant believes that, once completed, the grievance proceedings have not appropriately dealt with the substance of her Application, she may seek to re-activate her deferred Application. However, the applicant should take note that, under s. 45.1 of the Code, the Tribunal has the power to dismiss Application if the substance of an Application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

9Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure address how an application may be brought back before the Tribunal following conclusion of another proceeding. It should be noted that, a party wishing to proceed with an application must file a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Forms can be found on its website at www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/.

ORDER

10For the above reasons, the Tribunal defers consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings in this case.