Chandiwala v. Weston Bakeries Ltd., 2012 HRTO 514

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Raza Chandiwala Applicant

-and-

Weston Bakeries Ltd. and Peter Nguyen Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: March 13, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 514 Indexed as: Chandiwala v. Weston Bakeries Ltd.

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), raises allegations that the respondents discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of race, place of origin, and disability in the area of employment.

2The Application was deferred by way of Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 2506 until the applicant’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) matter was determined.

3On October 21, 2011, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and advised that the applicant’s WSIB matter was currently under appeal to the Workplace Safety and Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”) and that a hearing was expected to take place in 2012.

4On March 2, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) requesting that the Tribunal reactivate the applicant’s Application because the applicant’s appeal to WSIAT is scheduled for June 5, 2012. The applicant submits that reactivation is requested because “in an effort to move this matter along without further delay it would be beneficial to the parties for the Application to be reactivated so that a hearing date can be set.” The applicant further submits that, since counsel for one of the respondents has changed, it would assist the parties to again engage in mediation.

Applicant’s Request for a Conference Call Hearing

5The applicant indicates that, while the corporate respondent consents to the Request, the personal respondent does not consent. The applicant submits that, because the personal respondent does not consent, a conference call may be necessary to determine the Request.

6The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) provides the Tribunal with broad discretion to direct how a matter will be dealt with and determined. In my view, a conference call hearing is not necessary to deal with the preliminary issue raised by the applicant and a written process is the speedier way of addressing the request. Previous Tribunal decisions have determined issues of this nature based only on parties’ written submissions.

Applicant’s Request to Reactivate

7Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules outlines the procedure by which a party may seek to bring the Application back on once the conditions set out in the deferral decision have been satisfied. Rule 14.4 states that:

Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any. (emphasis added)

8The Interim Decision in this matter held that “(c)onsideration of the Application is deferred until the WSIB matter has been determined.”

9Based on the applicant’s submissions, it appears that the WSIB matter remains outstanding and has yet to be determined. As such, I decline to reactive this Application. A request to proceed with a deferred application can only be granted when the other process, upon which the application was deferred, has been completed.

10The applicant in this instance has not established that the WSIB process is concluded. In fact, the applicant indicates that WSIB matter is proceeding to a hearing in June 2012.

11Deferral 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. To allow this Application to proceed in these circumstances would thwart the Tribunal’s previous order and would result in concurrent legal proceedings. This would effectively disregard the very basis upon which deferral was considered appropriate. With respect to the applicant’s submission that it would be assistance for the parties to have another opportunity to participate in mediation, there is nothing about the deferral which prevents the parties from engaging in mediation on their own.

12Accordingly, the applicant’s request to reactivate this Application is denied.

13I am not seized of this matter.