Sylvester Larmond v. Bell Technical Solutions Inc., 2011 HRTO 1203

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sylvester Larmond

Applicant

-and-

Bell Technical Solutions Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: July 4, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1203

Indexed as: Larmond v. Bell Technical Solutions Inc.

1This is an Application filed April 10, 2009, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities.

2On July 8, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application. On October 18, 2010, the respondent filed a Response to the Application, and a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("Request"). In its Request, the respondent seeks dismissal of the Application on the basis that the respondent is federally-regulated and the Application falls outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

3On October 21, 2010, the applicant field a Response to the respondent's Request, submitting that the matter falls within provincial jurisdiction.

4On February 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction ("CAD"), indicating that it appears that the Tribunal is currently addressing the same jurisdictional issue in another matter before it, wherein Bell Technical Solutions Inc. is also named as a party. See Swift v. Bell Technical Solutions Inc., 2010 HRTO 1557. The Tribunal proposed that this Application be held in abeyance pending the Tribunal's decision concerning the jurisdictional issue raised in Swift, supra., and provided the parties with an opportunity to provide written submissions if they disagreed with the Tribunal's proposal that this matter be held in abeyance.

5The applicant subsequently provided submissions indicating that he did not want his Application to be held in abeyance.

6In Swift, supra, the Tribunal indicated that the issue is more complex than reflected in the parties' written submissions, and that Tribunal did not have a complete factual record before it to make the necessary determination about the federal/provincial issue in light of the law as reflected in the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Northern Telecom v. Communications Workers of Canada, 1979 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115, and Northern Telecom v. Communication Workers, 1983 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 733. The Tribunal determined that an oral hearing would be held on the jurisdictional issue in Swift, supra. It appears that the hearing has now been held and a decision is pending.

7Pursuant to section 9.1(d) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, if two or more proceedings before a tribunal involve the same or similar questions of fact, law or policy, the tribunal may stay one or more of the proceedings until after the determination of another one of them. In addition, pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may take any action that it determines is appropriate in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it.

8It appears to the Tribunal that both the Application in Swift, supra, and the present Application raise similar questions of fact and law concerning a jurisdictional issue. In Swift, supra, the Tribunal has already held a hearing on the jurisdictional issue and the Tribunal's decision in that matter, which is pending, may be of assistance to the parties and the Tribunal in the present matter. In the circumstances, the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to hold this Application in abeyance, pending the Tribunal's decision concerning jurisdiction in Swift, supra.

9I am not seized of this matter.