Kelly v. Westmont Hospitality Management Ltd., 2012 HRTO 2056

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shannon Kelly

Applicant

-and-

Westmont Hospitality Management Ltd. c.o.b. as Les Suites Hotel Ottawa

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: October 26, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2056

Indexed as: Kelly v. Westmont Hospitality Management Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shannon Kelly, Applicant

Self-represented

Westmont Hospitality Management Ltd., Respondent

Laura Kraft, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed 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 goods, services and facilities because of age. This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related Tribunal application.

2The respondent requested deferral of this application on the basis of the overlap between this Application and 2012-12095-I, which was filed by another person. Both applications rely on the same facts to support the allegation of discrimination and both applications are at the same stage in the Tribunal process. The applicant agrees to the request to defer pending the outcome of 2012-12095-I.

3The 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 seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The Tribunal will generally defer an Application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. However, the Tribunal must also consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

4Since the issues in this Application overlap significantly with 2012-12095-I proceeding could very possibly lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the two applications. The primary purpose of deferring an Application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. The applicant has also consented to the deferral. I find that, in all of the circumstances, deferring the Application is appropriate.

5The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal following conclusion of another other proceeding. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca, under “New Applications”. Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

6I am not seized