Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Frances Pighin Applicant
-and-
Casino Rama Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: October 2, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1873 Indexed as: Pighin v. Casino Rama
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Casino Rama, Respondent Kim Pepper, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application, which was filed on June 5, 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 disability.
2On August 22, 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 civil action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the respondent and Sun Life Assurance Company. The respondent submits that this civil action was commenced on July 11, 2011, and that the facts relied upon and the issues to be decided upon in both the Application and the civil action are virtually identical. The respondent quotes from both the Application and the Statement of Claim to argue that the thrust of the Application and the civil action are that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability and ultimately terminated her employment based on her disability contrary to the Code. The respondent also submits that the damages the applicant is seeking in her civil action include damages for the termination of her employment and for mental stress.
4The respondent further indicates that a mediation in the civil action has already been scheduled for April 23, 2012.
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. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.
6I am satisfied, based on the information and arguments provided by the respondent, that the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's civil action. I am satisfied that the applicant's civil action will involve some consideration of the principal allegations the applicant has included as part of her Application. Under these circumstances, it would not be just, fair or expeditious to proceed with the Application at this time.
7The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rule 14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of October, 2012.
"Signed by"_______________________
Eric Whist Vice-chair