Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Lina Ahmed Applicant
-and-
St. Joseph’s Health Centre and Rachel Morrison Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: February 25, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 418 Indexed as: Ahmed v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Lina Ahmed, Applicant ) Self-represented St. Joseph’s Health Centre and Rachel Morrison, Respondents ) Brian D. Mulroney, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision deals with an Application filed on August 30, 2010, under section 34(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour and creed.
2On December 15, 2010, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal of the Application for delay, as well as under section 34(11) of the Code because of a concurrent civil proceeding and, in the alternative, deferral pending the outcome of a professional regulatory body complaint.
3In a Notice dated January 20, 2011, the Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the respondents’ requests to dismiss and/or defer no later than February 4, 2011.
4On February 18, 2011, the applicant emailed the Tribunal indicating that she was amenable to participating in mediation; however, the applicant did not file submissions in response to the Tribunal’s Notice and the timeline for doing so has elapsed.
DECISION
5The respondents argue that section 34(11) bars this Application from proceeding because the applicant commenced a civil suit based on the same facts and allegations and seeking similar remedies. Section 34(11) of the Code provides:
A person who believes that one of his or her rights under Part I has been infringed may not make an application under subsection (1) with respect to that right if,
(a) a civil proceeding has been commenced in a court in which the person is seeking an order under section 46.1 with respect to the alleged infringement and the proceeding has not been finally determined or withdrawn; or
(b) a court has finally determined the issue of whether the right has been infringed or the matter has been settled.
6Section 46.1 reads as follows:
46.1 (1) If, in a civil proceeding in a court, the court finds that a party to the proceeding has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the proceeding, the Court may make either of the following orders, or both:
An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
(2) Subsection (1) does not permit a person to commence an action based solely on an infringement of a right under Part I.
7In her Application, the applicant alleges that she was forced to quit her job with the corporate respondent because she experienced discrimination and harassment throughout her employment, including unfair criticism of her work and scrutiny of her vocational training. The applicant alleges the personal respondent subjected her to offensive comments. The Application narrative is divided into five sections setting out allegations with respect to an “INR Incident”; discrimination and harassment allegedly perpetrated by the Blood Bank Technical Specialist; discrimination suffered during night shift; discrimination by another individual; and discrimination leading to quitting job. The applicant seeks $500,000 in damages for psychological abuse, full compensation for loss of salary up to retirement, compensation for loss of residence due to cessation of employment and health care costs.
8The respondents indicate that the applicant commenced a civil action before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the corporate respondent. The respondents submit that the civil claim is identical in its entirety to the Application. The respondents provided a copy the applicant’s Statement of Claim.
9The applicant’s Statement of Claim is dated November 19, 2010. In her Statement of Claim, the applicant alleges that she (the plaintiff) was constructively dismissed from her employment with the defendant (corporate respondent) because she was subjected to discrimination and harassment. The specific allegations particularized in the Statement of Claim are identical to the five areas of discrimination alleged in the Application narrative. The prayer of relief at the outset of the Statement of Claim is also identical and seeks $500,000 for psychological damage, full compensation for loss of salary up to retirement, compensation for loss of residence due to constructive dismissal and health care costs.
10Section 34(11) is intended to eliminate duplicate court and Tribunal proceedings alleging breaches of the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/