Angelica Gaudreault v. S & B Dentistry Corporation, 2012 HRTO 2036

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angelica Gaudreault

Applicant

-and-

S & B Dentistry Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: October 25, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2036

Indexed as: Gaudreault v. S & B Dentistry Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

S & B Dentistry Corporation, Respondent

David Spears, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application filed on August 15, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex.

2The applicant alleges that she was fired because she was pregnant. In her Application, the applicant indicated that she had made a claim for termination and severance pay to the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (the “ESA”). It appears that there has yet been no decision under the ESA process.

3On September 6, 2009, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The Notice asked for submissions from the applicant no later than October 5, 2012.

4The applicant did not respond to the Notice, and the time for doing so has passed. The respondent responded to the Notice, supporting a deferral.

5The 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 (Code s.45; Rule 14.1).

6Deferral 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. Deferral is not automatically indicated simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the types of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

7Having reviewed the subject-matter of the applicant’s ESA claim, which she has filed with the Tribunal, I conclude that it is identical to the subject-matter of her Application.

8In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to defer consideration of this Application.

9The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4. These Rules outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back before this Tribunal after the conclusion of the ESA process.

10I am not seized.

ORDER

11The Application is deferred pending the completion of the ESA proceedings.