Jurczynski v. Canadian Specialty Metals ULC, 2013 HRTO 1804

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jessica Jurczynski Applicant

-and-

Canadian Specialty Metals ULC Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 25, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1804 Indexed as: Jurczynski v. Canadian Specialty Metals ULC

Written Submissions

Canadian Specialty Metals ULC, Respondent Jackie VanDerMeulen, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on July 8, 2013, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of ancestry and sex.

2The applicant alleges that she was treated unfairly by the respondent employer after she advised that she was pregnant. The applicant also alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment, as well as harassment because of ancestry, by co-workers. The applicant alleges that her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy.

3The respondent filed a Response on August 7, 2013 denying the allegations. The respondent alleges that the applicant was dismissed because of poor work performance. The respondent requests that the Application be deferred because the applicant commenced a pregnancy reprisal claim in with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 ("ESA").

4On September 24, 2013, pursuant to a Tribunal direction, the applicant to filed a copy of her ESA claim.

5On September 27, 2013, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal, copied to the applicant, noting that it recently filed an Application for Review with the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking to review the ESA decision which concluded that the applicant's employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

6Pursuant 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.

7The 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. Tribunal decisions have deferred applications where there were on-going Ministry of Labour proceedings when the facts and issue raised in the ESA claims overlapped with subject matter of the applications: see for example, Matechuk v. OLG at Thousand Islands, 2009 HRTO 324; Golon v. Addison Chevrolet Buick GMC, 2010 HRTO 448 and Ogbonna-Ehirim v. Holiday Inn & Suites Mississauga, 2011 HRTO 1750, supra.

8Some 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. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

9Based on a review of the applicant's Ontario Labour Relations Board documentation, I find that the applicant's ESA claim and this Application raise similar issues. There is little doubt that the Ontario Labour Relations Board appeal will be addressing some of the same facts and allegations as raised in this Application, particularly with respect to the issue of pregnancy discrimination. In light of the fact that Ontario Labour Relations Board appeal remains outstanding and that there are overlapping issues, I find it appropriate to defer this Application.

10The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the Ontario Labour Relations Board matter. Where 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 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

11I am not seized.