Hanna v. A and 2M Drugs Limited, 2012 HRTO 576

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Amany Hanna

Applicant

-and-

A and 2M Drugs Limited and Amir Besada

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: March 20, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 576

Indexed as: Hanna v. A and 2M Drugs Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Amany Hanna, Applicant ) Self-represented

Amir Besada, Personal Respondent ) Craig R. Colraine, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on June 14, 2011, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of family status and marital status. The applicant states that she worked as a pharmacist for the corporate respondent. The applicant alleges that the personal respondent, a co-owner of the corporate respondent, had a conflict with her husband, also a co-owner of the corporate respondent, and this conflict resulted in her being mistreated by the personal respondent at work.

2The personal respondent filed a Response on November 1, 2011, in which he denies the allegations of discrimination and reprisal. He states that he is a minority shareholder of the respondent corporation and that the applicant is the majority shareholder. The personal respondent indicates that the applicant filed a civil action (CV-11-9397-00CL) against him with respect to her rights as a shareholder of the corporate respondent and alleged misconduct with respect to sale of the business. The personal respondent seeks the deferral of the Application pending the determination of a civil suit.

3The corporate respondent did not file a Response or submissions with respect to the request to defer. Pursuant to Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 231, the Tribunal held that if a Response and submissions were not received from the corporate respondent, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent and may determine the issue of deferral based only on the materials filed.

4The applicant filed submissions on December 1, 2011, opposing deferral. The applicant submits that the civil suit does not relate to her human rights concerns and instead deals with the personal respondent’s alleged fraudulent actions in his dealings with her.

Deferral

5Pursuant to Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the 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. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with similar facts and issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

6The Tribunal will 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. The Tribunal will generally defer an application where the parties are engaged in other legal proceedings raising similar facts and issues, particularly where the other decision-maker has the authority to make determinations with respect to facts that parallel the Application: see Aganeh Estate v. Mental Health Care Penetanguishene, 2011 HRTO 2280.

7I see no reasons to depart from this approach given the overlapping facts, parties and interests in the proceedings. While I appreciate the applicant’s submission that her Application raises concerns of discrimination and harassment and that the civil action deals with issues of oppression, negligence, fraud and conspiracy, the civil action clearly involves the parties in another legal process compromising of allegations of misconduct of the personal respondent towards the applicant. The civil action is currently underway and may potentially provide financial remedies related to some of the income compensation claims made in the Application. Most importantly, in determining the civil action, the Superior of Court of Justice may make findings of fact relevant to the Application regarding the contested dispute between the parties as to their respective roles, ownership, responsibility and authority in the corporate entity.

8There are a number of compelling reasons why an application should be deferred when parties are engaged in other legal proceedings that raise related issues. As noted in various Tribunal decisions, it may be unfair for parties to be required to simultaneously present their cases in multiple fora, particularly when the matters overlap; when the same facts or issues are in dispute there is a potential for inconsistent findings; and it is generally preferable for one proceeding to be completed before the other starts: Klein v. Toronto Zionist Council, 2008 HRTO 189; Tekes v. Markham (Town), 2009 HRTO 1665; and Mahjour v. Joe Singer Shoes, 2010 HRTO 1053

9In light of the concurrent civil proceeding and the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact, I determine that the most fair, just and expeditious approach is to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the civil process.

ORDER

10The Tribunal directs the Application will be deferred pending the conclusion of the civil suit in CV-11-9397-00CL.

11The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure by which a party may request that the Application be reactivated after deferral.

12I am not seized.