HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
David Ngo Applicant
-and-
L-3 Electronic Communications, Electronic System Services and Claude Porlier Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: August 14, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1571 Indexed as: Ngo v. L-3 Electronic Communications
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
David Ngo, Applicant Ayoob Khan, Representative
L-3 Electronic Communications, Electronic System Services and Claude Porlier, Respondents Ann Straker, 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 race and ethnic origin.
2The respondents filed a Response denying the allegations in the Application. The Response also indicates that the matter should be deferred pending the conclusion of an internal investigation which was initiated after a complaint made by the applicant pursuant to the corporate respondent’s Ethics and Business Conduct Policy.
3The applicant has filed a Reply in which he opposes the respondent’s Request to Defer for reasons which include that an internal investigation is “not another legal proceeding”.
4This Interim Decision is for the purposes of determining the respondent’s Request to Defer.
Decision
5The 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 (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The Tribunal must 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.
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. However, deferral is not automatic where the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. The Tribunal must also consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding.
7The Tribunal has determined that an internal employer investigation is not a proceeding for the purposes of section 45.1: See Nash v. Ontario (Attorney General) 2010 HRTO 1530.
8I have reviewed the submissions of the parties and find it is not appropriate to defer this Application. The respondent’s internal investigation is not a proceeding because it is a purely private internal process which does not require compliance with the rules of procedural fairness. The respondent’s internal investigation is not an independent decision-making process which could potentially lead to inconsistent findings of fact or law. Therefore, it is fair, just and expeditious for the Tribunal to proceed with the Application.
Order
9The respondent’s Request to Defer is denied. The Application will be scheduled for mediation.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of August, 2012.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair