Anida Gryc v. Scotia McLeod, a division of Scotia Capital Inc., 2012 HRTO 1045

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anida Gryc

Applicant

-and-

Scotia McLeod, a division of Scotia Capital Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: May 25, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1045

Indexed as: Gryc v. Scotia McLeod

1This is an Application filed on January 10, 2011 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of another related proceeding.

2Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative, defer consideration of an application after providing notice of its intention to do so to all parties and giving them an opportunity to make submissions.

3The Tribunal has received a request from the respondent that this matter be deferred pending the conclusion of two actions commenced by the applicant against the respondent in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The respondent indicates that the applicant consents to the deferral.

4The applicant has commenced two actions against the respondent: Court File No. CV-11-432177 (issued on December 5, 2011) and Court File No. CV-12-446587 (issued on February 16, 2012).

5The first of the above noted actions concerns the applicant’s claim for disability benefits and the second concerns the respondent’s alleged failure to accommodate the applicant and its termination of the applicant’s employment.

6In the Application before the Tribunal, the applicant alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate her disability and that her termination from employment was in violation of the Code.

DECISION

7Deferral 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. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

8Some 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 type 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 and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

9In this case, the factors favouring deferral are the consent of the parties to the deferral, the fact that the civil actions and the Application to the Tribunal are based on the same underlying factual matrix and the risk of conflicting or duplicative decisions should the request to defer be denied.

10In these circumstances, given the factors identified above, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the actions commenced by the applicant in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on December 5, 2011 and February 16, 2012. The hearing dates set for June 4 and 5, 2012 are cancelled.

11The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the civil claim has been concluded.