Acosta v. Far Horizons, 2011 HRTO 2114

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Dulce Acosta

Applicant

-and-

Far Horizons Inc., Evan Frank and Mark Schwartz

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: November 22, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2114

Indexed as: Acosta v. Far Horizons

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on July 28, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin and sex.

2In a previous Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1332, dated June 11, 2010 ("the Interim Decision"), the Tribunal deferred this Application pending the conclusion of a civil action filed by the applicant. That process has now concluded with a judgement issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Small Claims Court at Ottawa, dated July 20, 2011, in favour of the applicant. The applicant has now filed a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 ("request").

3The respondents have not filed a response to the applicant's request to re-activate her Application, or otherwise responded.

4In the circumstances, the request is appropriate and is granted.

5In an earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 411, dated February 23, 2010 ("the February 2010 Interim Decision"), and in response to the respondents' submission, the Tribunal stated that it did not have to determine whether section 45.1 of the Code applied because the civil proceeding was not concluded.

6With the civil proceeding now concluded, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to receive submissions from the parties on whether section 45.1 of the Code applies in these circumstances. Within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision, the parties are directed to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal any submissions, including references to case law, addressing whether section 45.1 of the Code applies in these circumstances.

7In making these submissions, the parties may want to consider the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52 ("Figliola"), in which language under the British Columbia Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, as amended ("the BC Code"), which is very similar to section 45.1 of Ontario's Code, was examined by the Supreme Court. This decision is found at www.canlii.org.

8I am not seized of this matter.