Katarzyna Brod v. Torizon Logistics Inc., 2011 HRTO 1738

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Katarzyna Brod Applicant

-and-

Torizon Logistics Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: September 21, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1738 Indexed as: Brod v. Torizon Logistics Inc.

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 vacation and termination pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 ("ESA").

2The applicant filed her Application on March 18, 2011, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The respondent received a letter from the Employment Standards Branch, dated March 16, 2011, advising it of the applicant's ESA claim.

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.

5Other 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 in its Response by noting that the ESA claim raises the same issues as are raised in the Application, 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.

6In her Application, the applicant alleges that she was discriminated against when her employment was terminated shortly after she announced she was pregnant with her second child. While her ESA claim addresses the pay she received upon the termination of her employment, on the face of it, it does not appear to deal with the main issue in the Application, namely the reason for that termination.

7On the basis of the information before the Tribunal, it would not be appropriate to defer and the respondent's request is denied. There may be some 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.