Luigi Pavone v. Navacro Machining Inc., 2013 HRTO 498

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Luigi Pavone Applicant

-and-

Navacro Machining Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: March 25, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 498 Indexed as: Pavone v. Navacro Machining Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Luigi Pavone, Applicant Wade Poziomka, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 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 purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request for an Order During Proceeding filed by the applicant on March 15, 2013 (the “Request”).

2In an earlier Interim Decision in this matter, 2012 HRTO 1592, released on August 20, 2012, the Tribunal found that this Application was not barred pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code because the applicant commenced a civil action against the respondent. The Tribunal found that section 34 (11) of the Code does not apply to this Application because the civil action, while sharing some of the same factual background as the Application, involves completely different legal issues and does not address the applicant's allegation of discrimination in employment.

3The Tribunal also found that deferral of the Application, pending completion of the civil action was not appropriate. The Tribunal noted that the issues in the two proceedings are entirely different and there was no indication of the status of the civil suit or whether it would proceed in the foreseeable future.

4In the Request, the applicant seeks deferral of the Application, pursuant to section 45 of the Code and Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”). The applicant submitted that the issues in the civil action and Application remain separate and distinct. However, the applicant submits that he is hopeful that a global settlement can be reached in the next few months to resolve both proceedings. Accordingly, the applicant requests that the Tribunal cancel the hearing dates currently scheduled on April 22, 23 and 24, 2013 and stay the Application for a period of six months to allow the parties time to negotiate.

5As of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent has not filed a response to the applicant's Request and in the circumstances no response is required.

6The Request is denied. The applicant's submissions provide no additional information regarding the civil suit that would indicate deferral is now appropriate. Indeed, he maintains his position that the proceedings are distinct. The applicant's request is really a request to adjourn the hearing dates to facilitate negotiations between the parties. As noted in the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, requests for adjournments are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. The Practice Direction also indicates that the Tribunal will not normally agree to adjournments to allow the parties to negotiate. Rather, the Tribunal will grant adjournments only in exceptional circumstances where a request comes more than 14 days after the receipt of the Notice of Hearing, regardless of whether the parties consent. The fact that the parties are engaged in negotiations is by no means exceptional and not in my view a proper basis for adjourning the hearing on this matter. The parties may request mediation/adjudication, pursuant to Rule 15A of the Rules, if they wish to explore settlement at the hearing.

Order

7The Request to defer the Application is denied.