Villeneuve v. Paul Ayotte Insurance Brokers, 2009 HRTO 2192

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Suzanne Villeneuve

Applicant

-and-

Paul Ayotte Insurance Brokers

Respondent

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: December 17, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2192

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 had indicated that the facts set out in the Application are part of a wrongful dismissal proceeding still in progress. In earlier Interim Decisions, 2009 HRTO 1249, dated August 12, 2009, and 2009 HRTO 1857, dated November 3, 2009, the Tribunal refused to dismiss the Application on the basis of section 34(11) of the Code.

3In the November 3 Interim Decision, the Tribunal requested submissions from the parties regarding whether the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the civil proceeding.

4The respondent filed written submissions urging the Tribunal to defer the Application. The applicant filed a letter from her counsel setting out the status of the civil matter and indicating that the matter is being set down for trial and that a pre-trial conference will be scheduled shortly. However, her submissions did not address whether or not the Application should be deferred.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. The Tribunal will consider factors such as the subject matter of the other proceeding, its nature, the type of remedies available, the status of the other proceeding and steps that have been taken to pursue it.

6In the circumstances, it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the civil proceeding. My decision is influenced by the fact that the same chain of events gives rise to the two proceedings and the civil matter is at a relatively advanced stage and is being set down for trial.

7The 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 after the civil proceeding has been concluded.

8I am not seized of this matter.