Ryan Carrier v. Saunders Plumbing & Heating Inc., 2013 HRTO 10

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ryan Carrier

Applicant

-and-

Saunders Plumbing & Heating Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: January 3, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 10

Indexed as: Carrier v. Saunders Plumbing & Heating Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ryan Carrier, Applicant

Self-represented

Saunders Pumbing & Heating, Respondent

Chamila Robert, Representative

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application was filed on August 30, 2012 and alleges discrimination in employment because of disability. This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related application under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

2The Application alleges that the applicant’s employment was unjustly terminated and alleges that the fact that he had filed a claim for benefits with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) may have been a factor as well as the fact that he had a disability.

3Prior to filing the Application, the applicant filed an application under the ESA with respect to various matters related to the termination of his employment, including termination pay and unpaid wages.

4On November 9, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because of the ongoing ESA claim. The applicant filed a submission opposing deferral of the Application. He states that the issues in the ESA claim are different than the issues in the Application. The respondents support deferral.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case.

6Some factors that have been identified as 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 and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

7In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the ESA claim. Although the remedies sought are not the same, there is some overlap in respect of the remedies sought by the applicant.

8In these circumstances I conclude that it is appropriate to defer further consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the ESA claim.

ORDER

9The Application is deferred pending resolution of the Employment Standards Act claim.

10Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).