Ebinehita Okoduwa v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., 2010 HRTO 2437

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ebinehita Okoduwa Applicant

-and-

Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: December 7, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2437 Indexed as: Okoduwa v. Husky Injection Molding Systems

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on July 8, 2010 pursuant to section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (pregnancy related conditions).

2The respondent filed a Response on October 15, 2010. The respondent requests the Tribunal to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of proceedings under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”).

3The respondent submits that the applicant filed an ESA claim on June 28, 2010. The applicant’s ESA claim alleges that her employment was terminated upon informing the respondent that she required medical treatment related to pregnancy health difficulties. The respondent submits that a meeting with an Employment Standards officer was held on November 18, 2010 to address the applicant’s claim.

DECISION

4The 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 (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

5Some 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 type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. See Calabria v. DTZ Barnicke, 2008 HRTO 411 and Matechuk v. OLG at Thousand Islands, 2009 HRTO 324.

6It appears that the ESA process was commenced first, the claim is on-going and that the parties have met with an ESA officer about the applicant’s allegations. It also appears that the facts and allegations in the Application and the ESA claim are the same and that legal issues overlap. Given that the issues in the Application and the ESA proceeding are similar and arise out of the same factual circumstances, as well as the potential for overlapping remedies, the Tribunal finds in these circumstances that it is appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding.

7The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the ESA process. Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

8I am not seized of this matter.