A Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario adjudicator has deferred a female police officer’s discrimination complaint against the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and related parties while a parallel grievance process unfolds, despite the applicant’s arguments that her human rights case should proceed independently.
S.B., an OPP officer, filed a human rights application in April 2024 alleging employment discrimination and harassment based on sex. Her complaint targeted four respondents: the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police Association, OPP Commissioner T.C., and former co-worker R.L.
The case centres on allegations that “a culture of sexual discrimination, harassment and assault prevailed during the course of her employment from 2016 through 2023, and that the organizational respondents were aware of this poisoned work environment and failed to address it.”
Parallel proceedings create conflict
The complexity arose when the OPPA filed a grievance on S.B.’s behalf in December 2023, months before her human rights application. The grievance alleged the employer violated multiple provisions including the collective agreement, the Ontario Human Rights Code, workplace policies, and occupational health and safety legislation.
The grievance stated that S.B. “was subjected to sexual harassment, sexual assault, bullying, and intimidation, and an overall unsafe, unhealthy, and poisoned workplace.” It further alleged the employer “failed to provide, and was negligent, in ensuring that the grievor had a safe and healthy workplace free from harassment and discrimination.”
Three respondents — the OPP, T.C., and the OPPA — requested deferral under section 45 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 14.1 of the tribunal’s procedural rules. They argued that allowing both proceedings to continue simultaneously would create duplicative processes and risk conflicting decisions.
Applicant opposes deferral
S.B. opposed the deferral request, presenting several arguments for why her human rights case should proceed. She contended that her application against the OPPA shouldn’t be deferred because no parallel proceeding existed against that respondent specifically.
Regarding the OPPA’s role, S.B. argued the union “condoned sexual harassment as a condition of employment for female officers…by protecting and favouring the male perpetrators of sexual assault and harassment over the female survivors of same.” She maintained that while the grievance involved similar facts, the allegations against each respondent were distinct.
S.B. also argued her application against the OPP should proceed because it “goes further in its temporal and substantive scope,” and her case against R.L. should continue since he wasn’t involved in any parallel proceeding.
She cited tribunal precedents including Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, arguing that applications aren’t automatically deferred simply because parties are involved in other proceedings. She also referenced Taylor-Cole v. Orangeville Police Association, where the tribunal rejected deferral because the application involved broader allegations and different respondents than the grievance.
Tribunal finds grounds for deferral
The tribunal found compelling reasons to defer the entire application. The adjudicator determined that “the facts underlying the grievance appear identical to those before the Tribunal, and the Code is expressly invoked in the grievance.”
While acknowledging possible temporal and substantive differences as S.B. argued, the tribunal concluded that “the allegations in both proceedings bear enough similarity that proceeding with the Application at this stage could result in conflicting determinations, and two respondents would be in the position of defending parallel proceedings.”
The tribunal referenced established precedent from Melville v. Toronto (City), explaining that deferral serves multiple purposes: “Deferral avoids two simultaneous proceedings that may result in conflicting determinations, ensures that the respondent need not be actively defending the same matter in two legal proceedings at the same time, and focuses the Tribunal’s limited resources on cases where it is the only process being pursued.”
Partial proceeding rejected
The tribunal rejected any possibility of allowing portions of S.B.’s application to proceed while deferring others. The adjudicator noted it wasn’t clear whether S.B. suggested her applications against the OPPA and R.L. should proceed independently if deferral was ordered against other respondents.
Such an approach “would not be a just or reasonable course of action,” the tribunal determined. Dividing the application “would substantially heighten the likelihood of conflicting determinations and duplicative proceedings which the courts and the Tribunal have found contrary to the administration of justice.”
Path forward established
The tribunal established a clear process for reactivation. Within 60 days of the grievance proceedings’ conclusion, any party may request reactivation under Rule 14.4 of the tribunal’s procedural rules.
However, the tribunal directed parties’ attention to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, which allows the tribunal to dismiss applications “in whole or in part, if another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.”
This provision means that depending on the grievance outcome, S.B.’s human rights application might face dismissal if the arbitrator adequately addresses her concerns through the labour relations process.
The case illustrates the challenging intersection between human rights complaints and collective bargaining processes, particularly in workplace harassment situations where multiple legal avenues exist for pursuing remedies.
For more information, see Bergeron v. Ontario (Solicitor General), 2025 HRTO 1358 (CanLII).
