Constance Anderson v. Contact Creative Services Inc., 2010 HRTO 1181

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Constance Anderson Applicant

-and-

Contact Creative Services Inc. Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: May 26, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1181 Indexed as: Anderson v. Contact Creative Services

1This Application, filed January 19, 2010, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy). The applicant alleges that she was terminated because she had taken a maternity and parental leave. The applicant advised in her Application that she had had also filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, as amended (the “ESA”). She attached a copy of the complaint to her Application, setting out almost identical facts.

2On April 19, 2010, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Application and Intent to Defer to the parties, which advises the parties that the Tribunal is considering deferring the Application pending the resolution of the ESA proceedings. The parties were invited to file written submissions by May 3, 2010. The respondent filed its submissions, arguing in favour of deferral, on April 30, 2010, but to date the applicant has not filed any submissions.

3Section 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 it likely that the Employment Standards Officer will determine the complaint prior to the hearing of this Application, I find that the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding is to defer this Application until the ESA process has concluded. If the applicant wishes to proceed with this Application after that process, she may make a Request for Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the ESA process (Rule 14.3 and Rule 14.4).

4I am not seized of this matter.