Kharal v. Oakville United Taxi, 2011 HRTO 1639

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Nazar Kharal Applicant

-and-

Oakville United Taxi Ltd. Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: September 1st, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1639 Indexed as: Kharal v. Oakville United Taxi

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin. The Application indicates that an Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) unfair labour practice application is currently in progress with respect to the same facts as alleged in the Application.

2The Application was delivered to the respondent. The respondent did not file a Response (Form 2), but instead, on July 25, 2011, filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) asking the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding. The respondent notes that, in three other related Applications, the Tribunal has determined that it is appropriate to defer consideration of those Applications until the proceeding before the OLRB has been completed, because the application and the proceeding before the OLRB raise similar allegations: Bhatti v. Oakville United Taxi, 2011 HRTO 450; Wahid v. Oakville United Taxi, 2011 HRTO 1108 and Khalil v. Oakville United Taxi, 2011 HRTO 1326.

3The applicant did not file submissions in response to the respondent’s RFOP.

ANALYSIS

4The 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.

5The applicant is one of a group of five co-workers who have applied to the OLRB with respect to allegations of unfair labour practices. The three Tribunal applications filed by the applicant’s co-applicants in the OLRB process have been previously deferred by the Tribunal. In these circumstances deferral is appropriate. The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding.

ORDER

6The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the OLRB proceeding.

7In the circumstances, the respondent need not file a full Response (Form 2) at this stage; however, the respondent may be required to do so at a later point in time. Where 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).

8I am not seized.