Villeneuve v. Paul Ayotte Insurance Brokers, 2009 HRTO 1249

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Suzanne Villeneuve

Applicant

-and-

Paul Ayotte Insurance Brokers

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: August 12, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1249

Indexed as: Villeneuve v. Paul Ayotte Insurance Brokers

1This is an Application filed on May 22, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”).

2The applicant has indicated that the facts set out in the Application are part of a wrongful dismissal proceeding still in progress. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss under Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure, referring to section 34(11) of the Code which bars a person from making an application to the Tribunal where there is an ongoing civil claim in the courts which seeks remedies for discrimination arising from the same events. The applicant was invited to make written submissions to the Tribunal explaining why her Application is in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3The applicant subsequently sent the Tribunal a copy of a draft Statement of Claim. It is not clear whether this Statement of Claim has been issued, but in any event, on my review of the material before me, it is not plain and obvious that this Application is barred under section 34(11).

4Section 34(11) is intended to eliminate duplicate court and Tribunal proceedings alleging breaches of the Code. An applicant’s ability to bring an application at the Tribunal is removed where there is an ongoing court proceeding in which he or she has made a claim for remedies based upon the same alleged infringement of the Code, where a court has finally determined the issue of whether the right has been violated, or where the matter has been settled. Section 34(11) is triggered by the applicant’s decision to raise the Code and seek remedies for its violation in a court action: see Beaver v. Dr. Hans Epp Dentistry Professional Corp., 2008 HRTO 282 at para. 10.

5Although it is apparent that the Application and the Statement of Claim are based on the same chain of events, the Statement of Claim does not refer to the Code. Nor does it explicitly seek damages for a violation of the Code. The Claim alleges that the respondent breached her employment contract by terminating it without notice.

6The Rule 13 Notice is issued before the Tribunal delivers an application to the respondent. The Tribunal will only dismiss the application if it is plain and obvious it is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A decision not to dismiss an application and to continue to process the application is not a final decision on the issue of its jurisdiction: see Rule 13.5.

7In this case, it is not plain and obvious that the Application is barred by section 34(11) of the Code. The Tribunal will deliver the Application and this Interim Decision to the respondent in accordance with Rule 13.4.

8I am not seized.