Dixon v. Isidoro Grossi Professional Corporation, 2010 HRTO 656

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Rochelle Dixon Applicant

-and-

Isidoro R. Grossi Professional Corporation and Isidoro Grossi Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: March 25, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 656 Indexed as: Dixon v. Isidoro Grossi Professional Corporation

1This is an Application filed on August 5, 2009 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"). The Application alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of race and sex and in particular on the grounds of pregnancy. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of another related proceeding.

2The Response to the Application (the "Response") asks the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of an investigation by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC). The applicant filed a complaint with the LSUC on August 4, 2009. The terms of the investigation include the issue of whether the respondents "engaged in discriminatory conduct by terminating the employment of a pregnant employee." This same issue is central to the allegations in the Application. According to the Response, the LSUC investigation was still pending at the time the Response was filed.

3The applicant was directed to respond to the request to defer. She has not provided any submissions on the request, and the time for doing so has passed.

4Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal's authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on its own initiative or on the request of a party, after providing notice of its intention to do so to all parties and giving them an opportunity to make submissions.

5Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run at the same time, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

6Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. Some 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.

7In this case, the LSUC is currently investigating a complaint involving the same issue that is central to the allegations in the Application. That investigation has been underway for quite some time.

8In these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the LSUC investigation.

9In order to bring back an Application that has been deferred, a party must file a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) within 60 days of the conclusion of the other proceeding, and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.