Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Katerina Broughton Applicant
-and-
Sitel Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: July 28, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1418 Indexed as: Broughton v. Sitel
1This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s Request to defer this Application pending a determination of the applicant’s claim to the Ministry of Labour for termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”).
2The applicant filed her Application on May 2, 2011, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and ethnic origin contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). She filed her ESA claim the following day (May 3, 2011).
DECISION AND ANALYSIS
3The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application on such terms as it may determine (Rule 14.1 of the Rules of Procedure). Deferral of an application ensures that legal processes dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently. It is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal processes, but is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances of each case.
4Some 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 types 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.
5In her Application, the applicant describes her ESA claim as a claim before the Labour Board for “unwillful misconduct.” It would appear from this term that she understands that if the respondent is able to show her employment was terminated for wilful misconduct in that process she will be considered ineligible for termination and severance pay.
6Other than the ESA claim itself, the Tribunal has very little information on which to make a deferral decision. The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer to that process by way of an addendum to its Response, but otherwise provided no submissions on its Request. The applicant was specifically directed to the Request for deferral and asked to provide submissions on the point, but did not do so in her Reply.
7In the absence of any submissions, it would not be appropriate to defer and the respondent’s Request is denied. There may be factual overlap between the two proceedings. In the event that there is a decision on the ESA claim first, any relevant findings of fact or law may be taken into consideration by this Tribunal.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of July, 2011
”signed by”__________
Naomi Overend Vice-chair