Carolyn Lutgens v. Oxford University Press, 2009 HRTO 790

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: June 8, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 790

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 (pregnancy). The applicant alleges that she was terminated because she was pregnant.

2The respondent filed a Response which included a request for the deferral of the Application as the applicant had filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, as amended (the “ESA”) in the Fall of 2008, alleging that she had been terminated because she was pregnant and because she planned to take maternity leave. The Response included submissions regarding whether the Tribunal should dismiss this Application or defer consideration of it until such time as the complaint under the ESA is resolved.

3By letter from the Registrar of the Tribunal, dated May 14, 2009, the applicant was invited to deal with the respondent’s requests in a Reply. The applicant filed a Reply with submissions addressing the requests to dismiss or defer the Application.

DECISION NOT TO DISMISS

4Section 45.1 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to dismiss an application, in whole or in part, if it is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application. The complaint under the ESA has been investigated, and no contraventions were found. The Employment Standards Officer found that the applicant was not terminated due to her pregnancy or her eligibility for pregnancy leave. The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “OLRB”) for a review of the Officer’s decision, and a hearing has been scheduled for July 9, 2009. Given that the OLRB has not yet heard or decided the ESA matter, it is impossible to determine whether it has in whole or in part appropriately dealt with the substance of this Application. The request to dismiss the Application is therefore dismissed.

DECISION TO DEFER

5Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. In each case, the Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

9Given that the subject matter in the Application is substantially the same as in the complaint under the ESA, and given that the date for the OLRB hearing is so close, I find that it would be appropriate in these circumstances to defer this Application until the OLRB proceeding has concluded. After the hearing before the OLRB, if the applicant wishes to proceed with this Application, she may make 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).

6I am not seized of this matter.