Nash v. Naotkamegwanning-Northwest Angle Education Authority, 2012 HRTO 42

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rhonda Nash

Applicant

-and-

Naotkamegwanning-Northwest Angle Education Authority and the Naotkamegwanning First Nation Education Authority, Chief Warren White, Howard Copenace, George Crow, Howard Kabestra and Garnet Namaypoke

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: January 10, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 42 Indexed as: Nash v. Naotkamegwanning-Northwest Angle Education Authority

1This is an Application filed on June 7, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision addresses whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

2The Application arises from the applicant’s employment and subsequent termination from the Naotkamegwanning-Northwest Angle Education Authority (“NNAEA”). The applicant was terminated when the NNAEA was dissolved by the Chief and Council of the Naotkamegwanning First Nation. The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against because of her gender, her ethnic origin/citizenship/place of origin and marital status.

3Accompanying the Application is an email from the applicant which indicates that she has filed a complaint against the Naotkamedgwanning First Nation (the entity that dissolved the NNAEA) with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and that the Commission refused to accept jurisdiction for a complaint against the Education Authority (the organizational respondent in this Application).

4A partial Response was filed on August 5, 2011. In its Response the respondents request dismissal of the Application on the basis that the issues in dispute are within exclusive federal jurisdiction and/or deferral to the related claim at the “Canadian Human Rights Tribunal”.

5On October 27, 2011, the Tribunal delivered the Response to the applicant and specifically directed the applicant to respond to the requests to dismiss and defer. The applicant disagrees with the respondents’ position on dismissal and states that the Tribunal should find that the Education Authority is provincially regulated. On deferral the applicant states that she is “content to defer this Application provided that the matter may be reactivated pursuant to Rule 14”.

6On November 21, 2011, the respondents filed further submissions. On the issue of deferral the respondents state that given the applicant’s position, the Tribunal should defer the Application.

7On December 6, 2011, the applicant filed a copy of the complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission with the Tribunal. The factual allegations appear to be identical to those in this Application although as mentioned above, the complaint is in respect of a different organizational respondent and various other respondents (who are referred to as being listed in a Schedule which is not included). The applicant notes that the Commission has accepted the complaint but there has not been a decision rendered and that no response has been filed as of yet.

8Having regard to the material filed and the parties’ submissions including the absence of any opposition to deferral, the Application will be deferred pending the conclusion of the complaint at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

9The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the complaint at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

10The issue of jurisdiction remains outstanding and will be addressed, if necessary, if and when the Application is reactivated.

11I am not seized.