HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brittany Smith

Applicant

-and-

Sundeep Singh and Sandhya Singh

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 3, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1668

Indexed as: Smith v. Singh

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Brittany Smith, Applicant ) Self-represented

Sundeep Singh and Sandhya Singh, ) Brian Silva, Counsel

Respondents )

[1] The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of an Employment Standards proceeding.

[2] The applicant was employed by the respondents as a nanny. On May 13, 2013, she filed an Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour, and on June 6, 2013, she filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In both proceedings, her main allegation was that Sundeep Singh terminated her employment because she was pregnant, and she claimed monetary damages.

[3] On July 16, 2013, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, which requested written submissions from the parties on the issue of whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. Both parties filed submissions.

[4] Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that 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. The 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.

[5] In [Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/404), the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-19:

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. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

Some 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 type 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.

[6] In my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. Although the issues in the two proceedings are not identical, there is significant overlap, which means that there is a potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings of fact and law. Furthermore, the applicant filed her Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour first, and that proceeding is at a more advanced stage than the proceeding before this Tribunal.

[7] Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards proceeding before the Ministry of Labour and any related reviews or appeals.

[8] Pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal’s Rules and Forms can be found on its website.

[9] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 3^rd day of October, 2013.

“signed by”

Ken Bhattacharjee

Vice-chair