Houghton v. Building Blocks Technologies Inc., 2012 HRTO 1867

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Stephanie Houghton Applicant

-and-

Building Blocks Technologies Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: October 2, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1867 Indexed as: Houghton v. Building Blocks Technologies Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Stephanie Houghton, Applicant ) Self-represented

Building Blocks Technologies Inc., ) Steve Shivkumar, Representative Respondent )

1This Application which was filed on July 13, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. The Application alleges that her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

2On August 21, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer in which it indicated that it might be appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding. The Tribunal asked the parties for written submissions as to why consideration of the Application should or should not be deferred. The Tribunal has received written submissions from the respondent.

3The respondent submits that the Tribunal should defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of the applicant's application before the Ministry of Labour. The respondent submits that the application before the Ministry of Labour is based on the same allegations as contained in the Application, namely that the applicant's employment with the respondent was terminated when the respondent learned the applicant was pregnant.

4The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of her claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 S.O. 2000, c.41 ("ESA"). The claim alleges that the applicant's employment was terminated because the respondent learned that she was pregnant.

DECISION

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application on such terms as it may determine and on its own initiative. See Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. In considering whether to defer an application the Tribunal will look at 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 to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them: see Calabria v. DTZ Barnicke, 2008 HRTO 411, and Kaj v. Orsini Bros. Inns, 2009 HRTO 170.

6Given that the issues in the current Application and the applicant's claim under the ESA are similar and arise out of the same factual circumstances, as well as the potential for overlapping remedies, the Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding.

7If the applicant intends to proceed with this Application following the conclusion of the ESA proceeding, the applicant is directed to contact the Registrar no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the ESA proceeding to make a request to proceed, and shall indicate the date the ESA proceeding concluded and include a copy of any decision or order in the ESA proceeding.

8I am not seized of this matter