Catherine Chan v. Drake International Inc., 2009 HRTO 441

Editor’s Note: Corrigendum released on April 20, 2009. Original judgment has been corrected accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Catherine Chan

Applicant

-and-

Drake International Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: April 15, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 441 Indexed as: Chan v. Drake International

1This Interim Decision concerns an Application filed on January 12, 2009 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and pregnancy. The respondents have asked that the Tribunal defer dealing with the Application until a proceeding currently before the Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Labour has been resolved.

2The applicant’s employment with the respondent was terminated on November 20, 2008. The applicant alleges that the termination was related to a pregnancy leave. The respondents allege that while the termination was not for cause, it was related to performance issues and that the applicant was paid severance pay. The applicant made an application under the Employment Standards Act 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, (“ESA”) in January 2009, shortly before she filed her Application with this Tribunal.

3While the remedies that are available under the Code are different than those that are available under the ESA, there is some potential overlap between the application that has been made under the ESA and the one that has been made under the Code, particularly in terms of the financial damages that the applicant is seeking. It is for this reason that the respondent seeks to have the Application at the Tribunal deferred until the ESA matter has been resolved.

4Section 45 of the Code gives the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an Application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the request of a party, defer consideration of an application. Before making such a determination, the Tribunal will give the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

5The applicant is directed to deliver written submissions on the request for deferral to the respondent and file them with the Tribunal by April 24, 2009. The submissions should address the question of whether there are reasons why the Application at the Tribunal should or should not be deferred until the ESA application has been disposed of. The applicant should also provide any relevant information about the status of the ESA application.

6The respondent may respond to the applicant’s submissions by May 1, 2009. Upon receipt of the submissions, the Tribunal will determine whether the Application should be deferred.