HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Shahid Qayyum
Applicant
-and-
Oakville United Taxi Ltd.
Respondent
interiM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Qayyum v. Oakville United Taxi
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on March 22, 2011. The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin (collectively “ethnicity”).
2The applicant alleges that the respondent treated him differently because of his ethnicity and that he was dismissed because of his ethnicity and union activities. The applicant alleges that employees of the same ethnicity as the respondent received preferential treatment. The applicant alleges that after an unsuccessful union vote which took place in the fall of 2009 in which he was involved, he was not approved as a driver by the respondent’s executive committee. The applicant alleges that employees of the same ethnicity as the respondent were not dismissed despite participating in the same union activities he engaged in.
3In his Application, the applicant identified that a proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) had been commenced and he provided a copy of the OLRB application. The OLRB application identified four other individuals as being co-applicants.
4The respondent has not yet been asked to file a Response by the Tribunal.
5On April 27, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer (“NOID”) to the applicant and identified that it may be appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the other legal proceeding (the OLRB proceedings). The Tribunal directed the applicant and the respondent to file submissions in response to the NOID by May 27, 2011.
6Neither the applicant nor the respondent filed submissions as directed and the time for doing so has now elapsed.
7The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an on-going legal proceeding based on the same facts and issues. 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.
8In Bhatti v. Oakville United Taxi Ltd., 2011 CanLII 23499 (ON LRB), the applicant and four other individuals are identified as being applicants in proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the corporate respondent.
9In Bhatti v. Oakville United Taxi, 2011 HRTO 450, (“Bhatti”) the Tribunal deferred that Application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding because both claims set out similar allegations with respect to unfair dismissal.
10In these circumstances, deferral is appropriate. The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding.
11Where 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).
12If this Application continues to proceed after the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding, pursuant to Rule 1.7(d), the parties may seek to consolidate this Application with Bhatti, or any other application which pertains to the same issues as those raised in this Application.
13I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 8^th^ day of June, 2011.
”signed by”__________
Alison Renton
Vice-chair