# HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
B E T W E E N:
Kayla Godden
Applicant
-and-
Bell Mobility Inc.
Respondent
_____________________________________________________________________
interim decision
______________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Date: May 9, 2012
Citation: 2012 HRTO 937
Indexed as: Godden v. Bell Mobility Inc.
______________________________________________________________________
# [1] This Interim Decision addresses whether the Application should be deferred pending the determination by the Canadian Human Rights Commission with respect to whether the applicant’s human rights claim falls within its jurisdiction.
# [2] On February 24, 2012 the applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex in respect of employment.
# [3] In her Application, the applicant indicates that pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Code, R.S.C. 1985 c. H-6, she filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”), based on the same facts and issues as those underlying the Application. She indicates that the CHRC has not yet decided whether it will accept her human rights complaint against the respondent employer because it is unclear whether her employment falls within federal or provincial jurisdiction.
# [4] On March 22, 2012 the Tribunal requested submissions form the parties with respect to the appropriateness of deferring the Application. The applicant has not filed any submissions with the Tribunal. In its submissions the respondent submits that the applicant’s employment falls within federal jurisdiction and that it would be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application.
# [5] 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 (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issue do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on fact or law. 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.
# [6] If the Tribunal were not to defer consideration of this Application, then the first issue it would have to determine would be whether the applicant’s human rights claim falls within provincial jurisdiction and is properly within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This is precisely the issue currently being determined by the CHRC. Thus, proceeding with the Application could lead to inconsistent decisions with respect to the jurisdictional issue. The primary purpose of deferring an application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. Given these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to defer the Application.
# [7] The 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 reactivated, following determination by the CHRC as to whether the applicant’s human rights claim falls within federal or provincial jurisdiction.
# [8] I am not seized.
# Dated at Toronto, this 9<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2012.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair
minicounsel