Armogan Gopaul v. Mytox Manufacturing, 2011 HRTO 2060

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Armogan Gopaul

Applicant

-and-

Mytox Manufacturing, a division of Magna Exteriors and Interiors Corp.

Respondents

interim decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: November 14, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2060

Indexed as: Gopaul v. Mytox Manufacturing

1This is an Application filed on April 18, 2011 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. He claims that the respondent failed to accommodate his disability and terminated his employment because he could no longer continue to do his regular duties due to his disability.

2As part of its Response, the respondent requests that the Tribunal defer its consideration of the Application on the basis that the applicant has also filed an Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour.

3On July 7, 2011, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to indicate that it had received a Request to Defer from the respondent and that the applicant must Reply to the Response by July 21, 2011.

4On July 21, 2011 the applicant filed his submissions. He opposes the deferral on the basis that the Employment Standards claim process will not deal with the human rights issues.

Decision

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application on such terms as it may determine on its own initiate or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the matters do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

6The factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application are the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, the subject matter of the other proceeding and whether it would be fair to the parties to defer taking into account the nature and status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

7I am of the view that a deferral is appropriate in this case. I understand that the applicant’s Employment standards claim is in relation to statutory entitlements for termination pay and severance pay, however, it is not clear that this is a discrete issue unrelated to issues raised by the applicant in his Application.

8There appears to be a disagreement between the parties as to whether the applicant’s employment was terminated for just cause or not. It may well be that a determination as to whether the applicant is entitled to severance pay and termination pay will require an examination of the circumstances related to the applicant’s employment, including the events leading up to the cessation of his employment and how he was treated by the respondent. In my view, there is a possibility that such an examination could address issues raised by the applicant in his Application. In addition, the applicant’s entitlement to termination pay and severance pay may have an impact in respect of any damages the applicant might be entitled to in the event he was successful in establishing the allegations in his Application.

9Accordingly, the Application will therefore be deferred pending the resolution of the Employment Standards claim process.

10Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

11I am not seized.