Carolyn Lutgens v. Oxford University Press, 2009 HRTO 1877

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carolyn Lutgens

Applicant

-and-

Oxford University Press

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: November 4, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1877

Indexed as: Lutgens v. Oxford University Press

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed February 3, 2009, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. The applicant alleges that she was terminated because she was pregnant.

2In its Response, the respondent requested a dismissal of the Application, which was denied, and a deferral of the Application because the applicant had filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) in the Fall of 2008, alleging that she had been terminated because she was pregnant and planned to take maternity leave. The complaint under the ESA was investigated, and no contraventions were found. The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “OLRB”) for a review of the Officer’s decision, and a hearing was scheduled for July 9, 2009.

3The Tribunal deferred the Application pending the outcome of the OLRB hearing. See: 2009 HRTO 790.

4On September 14, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings, seeking an order on an expedited basis that her Application now proceed. According to the materials filed, the OLRB hearing is scheduled for November 5, 2009. The applicant is prepared to adjourn or withdraw her OLRB application if the Tribunal will “re-initiate” the Application.

5The respondent opposed the applicant’s Request.

DECISION

6The applicant’s Request is denied.

7In its earlier Interim Decision, the Tribunal deferred the Application until the OLRB proceeding had concluded. This has not occurred and accordingly the Application will continue to be deferred.

8I note that to the extent the Request seeks reconsideration of the earlier ruling, the Tribunal’s Rules providing for reconsideration are restricted to final decisions. Further, to the extent that the applicant seeks an assurance from the Tribunal that it will proceed with her Application if she withdraws or adjourns the OLRB proceeding, the Tribunal does not provide orders based on hypothetical facts.

8The applicant may bring a Request for Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the OLRB matter (Rule 14.3 and Rule 14.4) and make whatever submissions she wishes regarding the status of the Application.

9I am not seized of this matter.