Archibald McLachlan v. Woodbine Entertainment Group and Robin Soobramanie, 2012 HRTO 1359

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Archibald McLachlan

Applicant

-and-

Woodbine Entertainment Group and Robin Soobramanie

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 10, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1359 Indexed as: McLachlan v. Woodbine Entertainment Group

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Archibald McLachlan, Applicant

Self-represented

Woodbine Entertainment Group and Robin Soobramanie, Respondents

Tania Caza, Representative

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of colour and place of origin.

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.

3On May 19, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer ("NOID") this Application pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration proceeding involving the same or similar issues. The respondent also pointed to the fact that the applicant has filed a statement of claim related to some of the issues raised in the Application.

4The applicant has not provided submissions in response to the NOID. While he did send in a Step 2 notice from the grievance process upon which is written "From Applicant", this does not form part of the issue.

5It is not clear what issues are raised by the grievance, although the applicant does indicate in the Application that some of the facts overlap and it does appear that the grievance may relate in part to his termination which is a significant component of the Application. The applicant did provide a copy of the Statement of Claim which appears to have been issued just subsequent to the filing of this Application. The issues raised in the Statement of Claim, although not identical to the allegations in the Application, are largely similar and include the central allegation that this termination from employment was discriminatory.

6Deferral 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.

7Some 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.

8In this case, the most significant factor is that the facts, issues and remedies sought the various proceedings are largely similar.

9In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the small claims court proceeding.

10The 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.

11I am not seized of this case.