Ibrahim v. Hilton Toronto, 2012 HRTO 1972

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tarek Ibrahim

Applicant

-and-

Hilton Toronto

Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: October 17, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1972

Indexed as: Ibrahim v. Hilton Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tarek Ibrahim, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application was filed on May 22, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (“Code”) alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of family status and marital status.

2The applicant alleges that he was subjected to discrimination and harassment by his co-workers, supervisors and a human resources representative because he requires accommodation of his shift schedules due to custodial arrangements for his child. The applicant alleges that the respondent has refused to accommodate him and also denied him overtime.

3The respondent filed a Response on June 29, 2012, denying the allegations. The respondent alleges that the applicant has refused to provide necessary details for it to be able to determine what, if any, accommodation is possible. The respondent also submits that a number of the applicant’s allegations are entirely unrelated to the Code.

4The applicant filed a Reply on July 17, 2012 alleging that that he has been subjected to increased retaliation.

5On August 2, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking to amend the current Application to include various incidents of alleged discrimination in relation to his family status from April 2010 to November 2010, including the denial of overtime and lack of cooperation regarding accommodating his family obligations.

6By way of Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1670, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request to amend this Application, in part, because the applicant raised similar concerns in a hearing of another Application (2010-05466-I) filed by the applicant in April 2010. In the Interim Decision, the Tribunal also denied the respondent’s request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

7In the applicant’s first Application (2010-05466-I), the applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, sex, and family status. The applicant alleged that he was not treated fairly due to days off work for a family member; a poisoned working environment; failure of the respondent to investigate his concerns; and failure to receive a promotion after raising his harassment and discrimination allegations. A hearing into the applicant’s first Application commenced on January 20, 2012. See Ibrahim v. Hilton Toronto, 2012 HRTO 740.

8The hearing into the applicant’s first Application (2010-05466-I) recently concluded and the decision is currently under reserve.

9On September 26, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction indicating that it appeared that some of the issues raised in the present Application may overlap with or be linked to matters in the applicant’s first Application and as such, the Tribunal was considering whether or not it should await the decision in the applicant’s first case before proceeding with this Application.

10In the Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal proposed to hold this Application in abeyance pending the release of the decision under reserve in the applicant’s first Application (2010-05466-I). The Tribunal directed that if a party did not consent to hold the current Application in abeyance, then that party was required to file with the Tribunal, copied to the other party, written submissions in support of its position as to why abeyance is opposed.

11On October 4, 2012, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal stating that he objects to abeyance on the basis that the two Applications are separate claims. While the applicant acknowledges that certain matters raised in the first Application may be referenced as background information to the second Application, the applicant submits that he believes it would be prejudicial if the Tribunal’s decision in the first Application influenced the second Application.

DECISION

12In accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may determine how a matter will be dealt with in order to provide for a fair and just process.

13I find that this Application should be held in abeyance and the Tribunal shall take no further steps in this matter pending the release of the decision in the applicant’s first Application.

14I do not agree with the applicant that the suspending the processing of the current Application in order to await the release of the decision in the first Application is prejudicial. While the incidents alleged in the second Application may be different from the first Application, the parties, many witnesses, the chronological history, work conditions and circumstances are likely to be the same or similar. Given the overlapping facts and legal issues, there is no doubt that the factual background and some witness evidence from the first Application will likely be relevant to the second Application. Placing the second Application in abeyance ensures that there is mimimal duplication of legal processes and evidence. Abeyance may also avoid the relitigation of certain matters and, ultimately, may assist the Tribunal and parties to narrow the facts and issues in dispute.

15In these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to hold this Application abeyance until the release of the decision in the first Application.

ORDER

16The Tribunal orders that this Application be held in abeyance until the release of the Tribunal’s decision in the applicant’s first Application (2010-05466-I).

17I am not seized of this matter.