An arbitrator has rejected an effort by a union to delay arbitration proceedings involving an alleged workplace harassment dispute at Wilfrid Laurier University, ruling that the collective agreement does not require a suspension of the hearing merely because the grievor filed a human rights application.
The decision clarifies that while the internal complaint process may be halted if a human rights complaint is lodged under certain circumstances, the same does not automatically apply to arbitration.
What happened
In this case, D.J., a former custodian at the university, filed multiple grievances alleging harassment, discrimination and improper termination. He also initiated a claim at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), citing discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexual harassment and reprisal.
When the union learned of D.J.’s HRTO application, it sought to pause the arbitration under Article 26.04 of the collective agreement, asserting that once a human rights complaint is filed, the parties must suspend any related proceedings under that article.
“The union submits that this paragraph requires that this arbitration be suspended until the HRTO proceedings initiated by the grievor are concluded,” the arbitrator wrote, quoting the union’s position. The union argued that a reference in the collective agreement to ‘filing a complaint with the Commission’ should be interpreted to include a modern-day HRTO application, since Ontario human rights legislation was amended years ago, eliminating the former role of the Human Rights Commission in receiving initial complaints.
The union further contended that the key phrase ‘proceedings under this Article shall be suspended’ in Article 26.04 applies not just to the internal university investigation process, but also to the arbitration that deals with the same set of facts.
According to the union, Article 26.04 contemplates a continuous sequence: from the filing of an internal complaint, to a possible grievance, and ultimately to arbitration. Because all these steps concern the same alleged conduct, the union said, halting one means halting them all.
The university, however, maintained that suspension only applies to the procedures set out in Article 26, which focus on the employer’s internal complaint mechanism under Policies 6.1 and 7.18. Arbitration, it argued, is governed by a separate provision — Article 14 — and is not subsumed under the same “proceedings” language. “Article 26 does not require an adjournment of the arbitration hearing in the circumstances of the present case,” the arbitrator stated, adopting the employer’s position.
Background
D.J. had been working primarily at a student residence when he discovered, in one of the common areas, that students had posted photos of him in bodybuilding poses. He claimed the university delayed removing the images, and he went on sick leave shortly thereafter, eventually filing a formal harassment complaint.
During the internal investigation, the university found it had failed in its obligation to take prompt action, and it mandated a round of harassment training.
Subsequently, D.J. was either terminated or deemed to have resigned, depending on the party’s viewpoint, leading to a separate grievance on unjust dismissal grounds. Another grievance was filed over the discontinuation of his benefits. All three grievances were consolidated for a single arbitration before.
While these grievances were advancing, D.J. independently submitted an application to the HRTO, seeking monetary compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, long-term health issues and discrimination. The union stepped in to support D.J. and obtained intervener status at the HRTO. The university then asked the HRTO to defer the application until arbitration concludes, pointing to legislative provisions that empower arbitrators to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code.
The union, however, insisted that Article 26.04 clearly states: “However, a complaint filed with the Commission will result in proceedings under this Article being suspended until those proceedings are concluded.” By the union’s reasoning, now that a human rights proceeding was underway, the collective agreement required the arbitration process to be halted. “If the process is at the grievance or arbitration end of the continuum,” the union submitted, “then the grievance or arbitration must be suspended.”
The arbitrator’s finding
In the end, the arbitrator sided with the university, concluding that arbitration does not fall under the category of “proceedings under this Article.” The ruling emphasized that Article 26.04 chiefly addresses the university’s internal processes for investigating alleged harassment or discrimination and places certain conditions on when a complaint can become a grievance.
“Article 26.04 only requires suspension of the instant arbitration if the arbitration is a proceeding under Article 26,” the arbitrator wrote. It found that the formal mechanism for resolving grievances, including arbitration, arises instead under Article 14 of the collective agreement, which sets out a distinct timeline and process. According to the decision, the mere reference to possible grievances in Article 26.04 does not transform an arbitration into “proceedings under this Article,” particularly given the collective agreement’s structure and the traditional interpretation of separate articles.
The arbitrator noted that, in the past, human rights complaints were launched with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which carried out its own investigations. Because of that older structure, it made sense for an internal university investigation to pause if a Commission-led probe was underway. Today, applicants file directly with the HRTO, which does not have an investigatory role in the same manner, and this change under Bill 107 was never mirrored by corresponding edits to Article 26.04.
Although the union invoked the university’s own policy, which states that “university proceedings may be suspended pending the outcome” of a human rights application, the arbitrator found that an arbitration is not a purely university-run proceeding. Thus, neither the policy nor the collective agreement compels a mandatory adjournment of arbitration when an HRTO application is filed.
In dismissing the union’s motion for an adjournment, the arbitrator directed the parties to proceed with the scheduled arbitration hearings. D.J.’s claim at the HRTO will run separately, though the university has asked the HRTO to defer its proceedings until the labour dispute is resolved.
For more information, see Wilfrid Laurier University v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 926, 2025 CanLII 7970 (ON LA).
