Davies v. Compton Cable T.V., 2009 HRTO 178

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Davies

Applicant

-and-

Compton Cable T.V. Limited and Edward Olsen

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 19, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 178

Indexed as: Davies v. Compton Cable T.V.

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s request to defer his Application “until such a time as the matter has been resolved under the Canadian Human Rights Act.”

2The applicant filed his Application on October 25, 2008 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. The Response, filed by the respondents on November 19, 2008, states that the respondent organization is a federally regulated undertaking and, accordingly, the Application should be dismissed.

3The applicant states the following in his Reply:

a. He initially contacted the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”), but was told that his complaint was outside its jurisdiction and advised to contact this Tribunal.

b. However, in light of the jurisdictional issues, he is proceeding with a complaint to the CHRC based on the same facts as set out in this Application.

On behalf of the applicant, the Legal Support Centre requests in the applicant’s Reply that his Application be deferred given the uncertainty about whether the subject matter of his Application falls under federal or provincial jurisdiction.

4In an earlier Interim Decision on this matter, 2009 HRTO 7, the Tribunal requested written submissions from the respondents in response to the applicant’s deferral request. The respondents filed a response in which they state their position that this Application should not be deferred, but rather dismissed as being outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. They also assert that the “applicant has not yet to our knowledge filed an application to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.”

5In 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. Even if this Tribunal were to determine this issue, it would not be binding on the CHRC, which must be assured of its jurisdiction to proceed with any complaint.

6The Tribunal orders the deferral of this Application pending the resolution of the matter under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The 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.

7I am not seized of this matter.