HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Wayne Rutledge
Applicant
-and-
Shannon Steel Inc. and Dennis Brough
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
Date: May 19, 2010
Citation: 2010 HRTO 1128
Indexed as: Rutledge v. Shannon Steel
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, and sexual orientation in the context of employment.
2In essence, the applicant states that the personal respondent made disparaging and discriminatory remarks to and about him in front of other co-workers. He states the corporate respondent was advised of the discrimination but did nothing to remedy it. He alleges that he was further discriminated against when the corporate respondent laid him off permanently.
3The respondents have filed a Response in which they deny the allegations of harassment. They requested the early dismissal of the Application because they say the applicant has signed a full and final release with respect to the same matter. In the alternative, they seek the deferral of the Application pending the completion of a police investigation.
4The applicant filed a Reply in which he objects to both a dismissal and a deferral.
Request to Dismiss
5The applicant signed the following document when his employment was terminated by the corporate respondent:
I, Wayne Rutledge, have read the termination letter and hereby accept the terms and conditions. I agree to return all property that belongs to Shannon Steel Inc. prior to receipt of this payment.
6The termination letter referred to in this document contains no reference to the Code or to human rights issues. It does not contain a waiver of any rights to file claims against the respondents. The applicant submits that the document he signed cannot be construed as a release, but is simply an acceptance of the terms of the termination of the applicant’s employment.
7In my view, the subject matter of the Application in this case is different from that addressed in the termination letter and the document signed by the applicant. In any event, the document signed by the applicant contains no release language and, in my view, does not bar the applicant from proceeding with this Application before the Tribunal.
8For this reason, the request for early dismissal is denied.
Request to defer
9The respondents state that the police were asked to investigate a harassment complaint by the applicant against a co-worker. The respondents state they are unaware of the status of the police investigation, although no charges have been laid as a result. They ask that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of this investigation.
10The applicant states that the subject-matter of the police investigation is different from the subject-matter of the Application. He says he contacted police for a specific reason; the personal respondent had suggested he had and was distributing embarrassing photos of the applicant. The applicant states that police advised him that the personal respondent was not likely telling the truth.
11Based on the applicant’s submissions, I understand that the police have concluded its review of the complaint.
12Section 45 of the Code gives the Tribunal the power to defer an application in accordance with its Rules of Procedure (“Rules”). Rule 14.1 states:
The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative, at the request of an Applicant under Rule 7, or at the request of any party.
13A deferral is not ordered automatically when parties are involved in other matters. A deferral of an application is often appropriate to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, raising the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact.
14Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the types of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer the application, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.
15I find that the subject-matter of the police complaint is quite different from the subject-matter of the Application. The police addressed a specific issue, but did not look into the allegedly ongoing verbal harassment in the workplace, the termination of the applicant’s employment, or whether the corporate respondent had met any obligations under the Code. In any event, it does not appear that the police review of the complaint is ongoing.
16I find that it would not be fair or appropriate to defer the Application in the circumstances. The respondents’ request to defer the Application is denied.
17I am not seized with this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of May, 2010.
”signed by”______________
Michelle Flaherty
Vice-chair