HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jeffery Bova Applicant
-and-
Akwesasne Mohawk Police Services and Leroy Swamp Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Bova v. Akwesasne Mohawk Police Services
1The Application was filed on March 31, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of age in respect of employment (“the Application”).
2In his Application, the applicant indicates that pursaunt to the Canadian Human Rights Code, R.S.C. 1985 c. H-6, he filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”), based on the same facts and issues as those underlying the Application. He submits that the CHRC has not yet decided whether it will accept his human rights complaint against the respondent employer because it is unclear whether his employment falls within federal or provincial jurisdiction. The Application was filed with the Tribunal in order to preserve his rights, if any, under the Code, in the event that the CHRC finds that his employment does not fall under federal jurisdiction. The applicant indicated in his Application that he is asking the Tribunal to defer the Application until this jurisdictional issue has been decided by the CHRC.
3On July 19, 2011 the Tribunal requested submissions from the parties with respect to the appropriateness of deferring the Application as requested by the applicant. None of the parties filed any submissions with the Tribunal. The applicant’s request to Defer the Application is therefore unopposed by the respondents.
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 proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. However, the Tribunal must also consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.
5If the Tribunal were not to defer consideration of this Application, then the first issue it would have to determine would be whether the applicant’s human rights claim falls within provincial jurisdiction and is properly within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This is precisely the issue which is currently being determined by the CHRC. Thus, proceeding with the Application could lead to inconsistent decisions on the jurisdictional issue. The primary purpose of deferring an Application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. I find that in all of the circumstances, deferring the Application is appropriate.
6The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which address how the Application may be reactivated, following determination by the CHRC with respect to whether the applicant’s human rights claim falls within federal or provincial jurisdiction.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of September, 2011.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair