Michael Maronese v. Teleperformance Canada, 2012 HRTO 1599

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michael Maronese Applicant

-and-

Teleperformance Canada Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: August 21, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1599 Indexed as: Maronese v. Teleperformance Canada

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 disability.

2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer ("NOID") on June 18, 2012, seeking submissions from the parties on whether this Application should be deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding. The applicant filed a complaint on the basis of the same allegations with the Canadian Human Rights Commission ("CHRC").

3Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules provides 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. 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.

4In response to the NOID, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a letter from the CHRC dated July 4, 2012, indicating that the CHRC is currently considering whether or not it has jurisdiction over the respondent.

5The respondent provided a letter to the Tribunal dated July 4, 2012, addressing the merits of the Application but not the jurisdictional issue. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the CHRC staff report recommending that the CHRC reject the complaint because it is "plain and obvious" that the circumstances of the complaint fall within provincial jurisdiction.

6Nevertheless, the CHRC has yet to make a formal decision in relation to the jurisdictional question. The parties are to provide their submissions to the CHRC on this issue by July 31, 2012. In my view it is appropriate to defer this Application until the CHRC has had an opportunity to render a formal decision. The Application is therefore deferred.

7The 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 before the Tribunal by either party, after the CHRC has made its decision.

8I am not seized.