Bevin Hadley v. J.A.C.S. Cartage Ltd., 2010 HRTO 516

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bevin Hadley

Applicant

-and-

J.A.C.S. Cartage Ltd., Craig Wedgbury, and Roumiana Lalova

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: March 9, 2010

Citation: 2009 HRTO 516

Indexed as: Hadley v. J.A.C.S. Cartage

1In this Application, filed on June 24, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), the applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of sex, age and reprisal in respect of employment.

2In an Interim Decision in this matter, 2010 HRTO 226, I sought submissions from the parties with respect to whether it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application, pending completion of ongoing criminal proceedings against the applicant.

3All of the parties filed submissions in response to the Interim Decision. Neither the applicant nor Ms. Lalova oppose deferral of the Application. Moreover, the corporate respondent and Mr. Wedgbury submit that the application ought to be deferred because there is a substantial overlap between the facts in the criminal proceeding and the Application, and that inconsistent findings of fact, law and credibility might result if the Application is not deferred.

4The personal respondents have both been subpoenaed as witnesses in the criminal proceeding against the applicant.

Decision

5The 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.

6In this case, there are ongoing criminal proceedings in which the applicant is charged with criminally harassing one of the personal respondents in the same time frame during which he alleges that she harassed him contrary to the Code. The facts in the criminal proceeding may overlap, perhaps significantly, with the facts alleged by the parties to this Application. This raises the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact if the Application is not deferred and runs concurrently to the criminal proceeding.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of this Application pending the conclusion of the criminal proceeding against the applicant. The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal after the criminal proceeding has concluded.

Other Matters

8In his submissions on the deferral issue, the applicant provided the Tribunal with the names and contact information of three individuals with a suggestion that the Tribunal contact them with respect to the merits of the Application. The Tribunal is a neutral adjudicative body. It does not investigate Applications before it or contact proposed witnesses. It is the parties to the Application who are responsible for presenting evidence at the hearing, if and when the matter is brought back on before the Tribunal.

9I am not seized of this matter.