Lawrence v. Debt Control Agency, 2010 HRTO 225

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Patrina Lawrence

Applicant

-and-

Debt Control Agency

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 1, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 225

Indexed as: Lawrence v. Debt Control Agency

1The applicant filed this Application under s. 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 and disability.

2In its Response, the respondent made a request for early dismissal on the basis that another proceeding has in whole or in part appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. Although specifically instructed to provide a copy of the document that started it, as well as a copy of the decision in the other proceeding, no such documents were attached to the Response. A copy of the decision, but not the initial claim, was provided by the respondent in response to a specific request by the Tribunal.

3The statutory authority for early dismissal is found in s. 45.1 of the Code, which provides:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

4It would appear from the Reasons for Decision from the Employment Standards Officer that the applicant had made a claim for unpaid wages and termination pay. The Employment Standards Officer concludes that the applicant (claimant in that proceeding) had, in fact, been paid all unpaid wages and had received one week of termination pay, and was, therefore, owed no further moneys.

5It is clear on the face of the Employment Standard Officer’s decision that he did not address the reasons for termination or in any way consider the human rights issues alleged in the Application. Accordingly, there is no basis for finding that the other proceeding in whole or in part appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The respondent’s request for early dismissal is, therefore, denied.

6I am not seized of this matter.