HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Arvind Burman
Applicant
-and-
Adecco Employment Services Limited
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Burman v. Adecco Employment Services Limited
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Arvind Burman, Applicant
No one appearing
Adecco Employment Services Limited, Respondent
Nicolette Mueller, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of family status. The applicant has also filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (the "ESA"), based upon the same fact situation as that raised in his Application.
2By letter dated May 17, 2013, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Defer ("NOID") advising that it may be appropriate to defer the consideration of the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding (the ESA complaint). The Tribunal requested the parties to provide submissions as to why the Application should, or should not be, deferred, by June 17, 2013. The Tribunal stated that it did not require the respondent to file a Response at this time.
3The respondent filed correspondence dated June 14, 2013 responding to the NOID. The respondent requests that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding.
4The applicant did not respond to the NOID and the time for doing so has elapsed.
analysis
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 the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.
6I have reviewed the ESA complaint that the applicant filed and have determined that it is appropriate to defer the Application until the completion of the ESA process. The Application and the ESA complaint are based upon the same fact situation and there is an overlap of some of the same issues. The Tribunal has held in other situations that this is an appropriate basis for deferral of an application. See Matechuk v. OLG at Thousand Islands, 2009 HRTO 324; and Golon v. Addison Chevrolet Buick GMC, 2010 HRTO 448.
7If the applicant believes, on conclusion of the ESA proceeding, that his human rights issues have not been adequately addressed, he may ask to have his Application brought back on before the Tribunal pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. In the event that the applicant seeks to have his Application resurrected, he must also provide information about the results of the ESA complaint, and any decision that was issued by an employment standards officer.
8I am not seized with this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of June, 2013.
"Signed By"
Alison Renton
Vice-chair