Cyndy Hunter v. Hubertus Vermeer, 2009 HRTO 104

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Cyndy Hunter Applicant

-and-

Hubertus Vermeer Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: January 30, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 104 Indexed as: Hunter v. Vermeer

1This is an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination on the basis of race and citizenship in employment.

2As background, the applicant and her husband were engaged in 2002 to manage and operate a dairy farm which she alleges was owned by the respondent, who is Dutch. The relationship soured in late 2007 and early 2008 and was formally terminated on April 30, 2008. The applicant alleges that during the relationship, the respondent discriminated against her by making reference to her Canadian heritage in a demeaning manner.

3The respondent alleges in his Response that the original business arrangement with the Hunters was with a company controlled by him, that was assigned to Farlake Dairy Limited in 2005.

4The applicant and her husband allege that $5000 was improperly withheld from them in April, 2008. As a result, the applicant's husband filed an Employment Standards Act ("ESA") application with the Ministry of Labour against Farlake Dairy Limited.

5In his Response, the respondent refers to the ESA application and requests deferral of this Application.

6In its interim decision Hunter v. Vermeer, 2008 HRTO 407, the Tribunal requested submissions from the parties with respect to the request for deferral from the respondent. The applicant provided her submissions but no submissions were received from the respondent.

Decision

7The Tribunal has authority under section 45 of the Code and Rule 14 of its Rules of Procedure to defer consideration of an application. In exercising its discretion, the Tribunal has regard to such factors as the nature of the other proceeding, the remedies available in that proceeding, and whether or not it would be fair to the parties to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the other proceeding.

8In this case, it is not appropriate to defer this Application. The parties involved in the two proceedings are completely different. The applicant's husband is an applicant in the ESA proceeding application against Farlake Dairy Limited. The respondent is not a party to ESA matter. Furthermore, I am satisfied upon review of the materials before me the human rights issues involved in this Application will not be addressed in any way in the ESA proceeding.

9The respondent's request for deferral is dismissed.

10I am not seized of this matter.