HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Yohanathan Kanapathipillai
Applicant
- and-
Specialty Care and Venus Inocencio
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Kanapathipillai v. Specialty Care
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on October 13, 2010, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of race, colour and place of origin.
2On November 8, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because it appeared the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The NOID indicated that the Application appeared to fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents.
3On February 25, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file written submissions in response to the NOID to dismiss because the applicant had failed to respond in accordance with earlier deadlines.
4On March 2, 2010, the applicant filed submissions explaining that the applicant perceives unfair treatment and dismissal because of the applicant is a “visible minority” of Sri Lankan origin. The applicant alleges that other employees were given preferential treatment and that the applicant was denied employment opportunities because of race.
DECISION
Notice of Intent to Dismiss
5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
6Based on the Application and the applicant’s submissions, I am satisfied that that the applicant’s allegations relate to the grounds race, colour and place of origin and raise concerns with respect to alleged differential treatment in the workplace. In the circumstances, it is not plain and obvious that the Application does not raise matters covered by the Code. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application. This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application, nor any indication of the merits of the Application.
Deferral
7The applicant’s materials indicate that the applicant was represented by a union, Ontario Federation of Health Care Workers - LIUNA Local 1110 (“union”), and that a grievance was filed on behalf of the applicant with respect to the employment termination.
8Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that the 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. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, The Tribunal will 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.
9Given that there is a potential of two concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal determines that it may be appropriate to defer the consideration of this Application. The parties and affected party are specifically required to provide the Tribunal with information of the status of the applicant’s grievance and may make submissions with respect to whether this Application should be deferred.
Order
10The Tribunal order as follows:
(i) The Registrar is directed to serve the Application and copy of this Interim Decision on the respondents and the affected party;
(ii) The respondents are not required to file a Response (Form 2) to the Application at this time; and
(iii) The parties are required to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal their submissions with respect to the issue of deferral by March 24, 2011.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of March, 2011.
”signed by”__________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair