Genossar v. Skyline International Development Inc., 2012 HRTO 1641

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hagit Genossar

Applicant

-and-

Skyline International Development Inc., Gil Blutrich, Michael Sneyd and Kevin Toth

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: August 28, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1641 Indexed as: Genossar v. Skyline International Development Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hagit Genossar, Applicant Self-represented

Skyline International Development Inc., Gil Blutrich, Michael Sneyd and Kevin Toth, Respondents Shana French, Counsel

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”) dated April 13, 2012.

2The applicant alleges that she experienced discrimination in employment because of sex and reprisal which culminated in the termination of her employment in November 2011.

3The respondents filed a partial Response to the Application. They state that the Application should be dismissed because the applicant executed a Release in respect of the issues raised by the Application. The applicant confirms that there is a Release but claims it is not a Full and Final Release but rather a conditional release and that it is not enforceable because a material condition of the Release has not been fulfilled. The applicant indicates that a civil action for wrongful dismissal was commenced on July 20, 2012 with respect to her termination of employment. The applicant states that the status of the Release will be determined in that proceeding and that it may be appropriate to defer the Application until the court has determined whether the Release is enforceable. The respondents agree that deferral of the Application is appropriate but state that the Application should in fact be deferred until after the final disposition of the wrongful dismissal action.

4There is a public interest in avoiding the duplication of adjudicative proceedings hearing the same evidence and deciding some or all of the same issues. However, before determining whether a deferral of the Application until the final disposition of the wrongful dismissal action is warranted, it would have been helpful if the Tribunal had the opportunity to review the pleadings in the civil action. According to the applicant, she intended on providing the Tribunal with the claim that she issued in the wrongful dismissal action but was unable to do so because the corporate respondent obtained an ex-parte order to seal the claim.

5In the absence of any pleadings, it cannot be determined whether deferral until the final disposition of the wrongful dismissal application is warranted. In the circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to defer the Application until after the court in the applicant’s civil action for wrongful dismissal makes a final determination regarding the enforceability of the Release.

6Rules 14.3 and 14.4 outline the process by which the Application may be brought on after the court has made its final decision regarding the enforceability of the Release.