Sethi v. Bell Canada – Bell Mobility, 2010 HRTO 667

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Farid Ali Sethi

Applicant

-and-

Bell Canada – Bell Mobility and Christopher Bennett

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: March 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 667

Indexed as: Sethi v. Bell Canada – Bell Mobility

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondents discriminated against the applicant on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed and age in respect of employment contrary to the Code.

2This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request that the Tribunal defer consideration of this Application and requests submissions with respect to whether the Application relates to employment in a federal work or undertaking, and therefore falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction, and not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

Deferral

3The respondents request that the Tribunal defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of an internal complaint process, through which process it intends to “close off” on the case. The internal complaint process contemplates complaints by employees to members of the corporate respondent’s management, including human resources. The respondents also seek deferral of the Application pending changes in the business which they assert will cause changes in leadership “across all teams”.

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 seeks to ensure that legal proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

5In this case, there is no other legal proceeding to which the Tribunal could defer, even if it were inclined to do so. The reason for deferring an Application – avoiding inconsistent findings of fact or law by judicial or quasi-judicial decisions-makers in concurrent proceedings – does not exist with an employer’s internal complaint process. Accordingly, the Request to Defer is denied.

Federal Work or Undertaking

6The respondent in this case may be an inter-provincial telecommunications enterprise and therefore subject to federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Accordingly, there is a question whether the Application relates to employment in a federal work or undertaking, and therefore falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction, and in particular, within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

7The parties are directed to deliver to each other and to file with the Tribunal their submissions with respect to whether the Application relates to employment in a federal work or undertaking and is therefore outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These submissions should be made within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

8I am not seized of this matter.