HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kirk Grasley
Applicant
-and-
Sealtac Flat Roof Restorations Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Grasley v. Sealtac Flat Roof Restorations Inc.
1This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s request to defer this Application pending a determination of the applicant’s claim under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”) for termination and vacation pay.
2The applicant filed his Application on January 20, 2012, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Shortly before filing his Application, the applicant also filed an ESA claim for termination and vacation pay.
3In its Response to this Application, the respondent asked that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of the proceeding concerning the ESA claim. The applicant was served with a copy of the Response and invited to file written submissions concerning the respondent’s request for deferral. The applicant opposes deferral on the basis that human rights issues are not raised in the ESA claim.
DECISION AND ANALYSIS
4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application on such terms as it may determine (Rule 14.1 of the Rules of Procedure). Deferral of an application ensures that legal processes dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently. It is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal processes, but is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances of each case.
5Some 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.
6The respondent does not explain why it is requesting deferral in its Response. As noted above, the applicant opposes deferral on the basis that the ESA claim does not raise human rights issues. In the applicant’s Reply, his counsel argues “A decision under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 will in no way impact the Applicant’s Application before the HRTO or a determination of discrimination under the Code.”
7Moreover, the applicant is seeking considerably more than the statutory minimums under the ESA in his Application to this Tribunal. Any amount awarded under the ESA could be factored into any order made in the process before this Tribunal (if appropriate).
8Given the lack of significant overlap between the two processes, I am of the view that deferral of this Application to the ESA process is not appropriate. The respondent’s request for deferral is denied.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of March, 2012.
”signed by”____________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair