Daigle v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2012 HRTO 1849

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lise Daigle Applicant

-and-

Liquor Control Board of Ontario Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: September 28, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1849 Indexed as: Daigle v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lise Diagle, Applicant Self-represented

Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Respondent Adrienne Couto, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), on March 29, 2012, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability.

2The Application narrative commences with a brief paragraph indicating that the applicant experienced discrimination in 1987. The second paragraph of the Application discusses the applicant's allegations of discrimination from September 2011 and onwards. The applicant alleges that the respondent has failed to properly accommodate her disability and that she has experienced a loss of income due to disabilty-related absences.

3On May 29, 2012, the respondent filed a Response. In the Response, the respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss/strike the first paragraph of the Application narrative as untimely and the subject of a settlement arising out of a previous human rights complaint and, therefore, barred under sections 34(1) and 53(8) of the Code. The respondent also requests that the Tribunal defer the Application pending the conclusion of an on-going grievance regarding the matters alleged in the Application. The respondent provided a copy of the grievance, dated November 18, 2011, regarding harassment, accommodation of her restrictions and reimbursement of lost time.

4On August 13, 2012, the applicant filed submissions indicating that she agrees to defer the Application because the grievance is still in process. The applicant did not file submissions with respect to the respondent's request to dismiss/strike the first paragraph of the Application narrative.

DISMISS/STRIKE

5Based on the materials filed by the respondent, I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the first paragraph of the applicant's narrative.

6The first paragraph refers to events that were alleged as part of the applicant's human rights complaint filed in May 1990 with the Ontario Human Rights Commission ("Commission"). The intention and effect of section 53(8) of the Code is to preclude a new applications based on the same or substantially the same subject-matter of an old Commission complaint.

7In addition, the first paragraph references the applicant's concerns from 1987, which are well outside the Code's one-year limitation period and there appears to be no basis for the Tribunal to relieve against the time limits in this case.

8In accordance, I find the first paragraph should be struck from the Application because of delay and pursuant to section 53(8) of the Code as the subject of a previous human rights complaint and the settlement of the same.

DEFER

9The 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). Deferral 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.

10The applicant advised the Tribunal that she consents to the deferral of the Application as the grievance process is on-going. Having reviewed the Application and the grievance, I agree that deferral is appropriate.

11As such, Application is deferred on consent.

12The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the applicant's grievance. The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance.

13I am not seized of this matter.