Candace Hills v. VuPoint Systems Ltd., Peter Enwright and Shawn Enwright, 2009 HRTO 1008

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Candace Hills

Applicant

-and-

VuPoint Systems Ltd., Peter Enwright and Shawn Enwright

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: July 9, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1008

Indexed as: Hills v. VuPoint Systems

1The applicant filed an Application on February 20, 2009 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in employment by the respondents on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation.

2The respondents did not file a Response. Instead, they filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings submitting that the corporate respondent is federally regulated and requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the Application for lack of jurisdiction. The respondents attached a letter on Government of Canada letterhead from a Sheri White, Inspector, dated December 18, 2006, which states that she has determined the corporate respondent is subject to federal jurisdiction for the purposes of labour legislation and therefore subject to Part III of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2. Ms. White’s letter does not identify the department on whose behalf she is writing.

3The respondents also requested that the style of cause be changed to reflect the proper spelling of the personal respondents’ last names.

4The applicant filed a Response to a Request for an Order. The applicant consented to the amending the style of cause. In the circumstances this request is allowed.

5The applicant asked that the Request to dismiss be deferred pending completion of an investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”).

6In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is of the view that deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with this Application. Before deciding to dismiss this Application as being outside its jurisdiction, this Tribunal would require further factual and legal submissions from the respondents and the applicant, thus putting the parties to further expense and delay.

7The Tribunal orders the deferral of this Application pending the resolution of the matter under the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 as amended.

8The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on once the matter has been so resolved.

9I am not seized of this matter.