Angela Haskins v. TNS Canadian Facts and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Labour, 2008 HRTO 287

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Haskins

Applicant

-and-

TNS Canadian Facts and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Labour

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: November 20, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 287

Indexed as: Haskins v. TNS Canadian Facts

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2A3 Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 / Fax (416) 326-2199 / Toll Free1-866-355-6099 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on July 24, 2008. The Application alleges discrimination in employment and services on the ground of ethnic origin. The Tribunal has amended the style of cause to correctly identify the respondent Ministry.

2This interim decision deals with requests by the applicant for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry and by the respondent TNS Canadian Facts for deferral of the Application pending resolution of a claim to the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (the “ESA”).

3The Application alleges that the applicant’s employment was terminated as a result of the closure of the company in December 2006. The applicant states that she made a claim under the ESA in June 2007 but has been waiting since then for an investigator to be assigned. The applicant believes that she has been differentially treated by both the company and the Ministry of Labour in their response to her claim, on the ground of her ethnic origin.

4The respondent TNS Canadian Facts requested deferral of this Application in its Response. The applicant was asked to provide her submissions on the request and in turn filed the request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry.

DEFERRAL

5Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

6Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

7The Tribunal finds no reason to defer this Application based on the presence of the claim under the ESA. The allegations in this Application relate not to the merits of the ESA claim, but to the manner in which the company and the Ministry of Labour have responded to the ESA claim. The issues in the two proceedings are therefore distinct.

TRIBUNAL ORDERED INQUIRY

8It is apparent from the applicant’s submissions on her request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry that she simply wishes her Application to proceed. She provides no basis for the Tribunal to engage the type of process described in section 44 of the Code, which is a separate and distinct procedure from the processing of her Application in the normal course.

9The Tribunal therefore denies the request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry. Given the Tribunal’s decision not to defer the Application, and the parties’ agreement to attend a mediation meeting, the Registrar is directed to proceed to schedule the mediation in this Application.

I am not seized.