Coralee Crane v. Bingemans Inc., 2010 HRTO 250

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Coralee Crane

Applicant

-and-

Bingemans Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: February 3, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 250

Indexed as: Crane v. Bingemans

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), involves allegations of discrimination on the basis of family status in the context of employment. In essence, the applicant alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate her when she needed to be absent from work to care for her husband.

2In its Response, the respondent has requested an early dismissal of the Application. It argues that a proceeding before the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 as amended, has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. In the alternative, the respondent seeks an order deferring the Application pending the outcome of the proceeding involving the Ministry of Labour.

3The Application references a complaint filed with the Ministry of Labour. In an email to the Tribunal and the respondent, the applicant states that she has “proper documentation” confirming that no other action has been taken against the respondent. This documentation has not yet been provided to the Tribunal.

4In any event, it appears that the Ministry of Labour has not rendered a decision regarding a complaint, if any, involving the applicant and the respondent. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Ministry of Labour has “appropriately dealt with” the substance of the Application for the purposes of section 45.1 of the Code. The Request to Dismiss is denied.

5In the circumstances, however, it may be appropriate to defer the Application pending the outcome of any proceeding involving the Ministry of Labour. Section 45 of the Code gives the Tribunal the power to defer an application in accordance with its Rules of Procedure (“Rules”).

6Rule 14.1 of the Rules 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.

7A deferral is not ordered automatically when parties are involved in other legal proceedings. However, 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.

8Within five days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant:

a. is directed to file with the Tribunal and provide to the respondent the documentation referred to in her email of January 5, 2010;

b. may file with the Tribunal and provide to the respondent written submissions regarding whether a deferral is appropriate in the circumstances; and

c. shall file with the Tribunal and provide to the respondent written submissions explaining whether she has initiated a proceeding involving the Ministry of Labour or the Employment Standards Act and, if so, explaining the status of that proceeding.

9Within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent may file with the Tribunal and provide to the applicant written submissions commenting on the status of the complaint to the Ministry of Labour, if any, and the appropriateness of a deferral in the circumstances.

10I am not seized of this matter.