Jambaro-Martin v. HSG Health Systems Group Limited, 2013 HRTO 570

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sarah Jambaro-Martin

Applicant

-and-

HSG Health Systems Group Limited

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: April 8, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 570

Indexed as: Jambaro-Martin v. HSG Health Systems Group Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sarah Jambaro-Martin, Applicant

Marvin A. Gorodensky, Counsel

HSG Health Systems Group Limited, Respondent

Andy Balaura, Counsel

Introduction

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 sex (pregnancy). The applicant alleges in her Application that her employment with the respondent was terminated because she was pregnant. The Application indicates that there is an ongoing court action which involves the same facts as alleged in the Application, and attached to the Application is a claim at Small Claims Court for wrongful dismissal.

2On November 22, 2012, the Tribunal delivered the Application to the respondents along with a letter stating that the Tribunal has determined that it may be appropriate to defer the consideration of the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject matter of the Application. The applicant filed submissions arguing that the Application should not be deferred, and the respondent filed submissions arguing that it should. This Interim Decision concludes that the Application should be deferred pending the completion of the Small Claims Court action.

REASONS FOR DEFERRAL

3The 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.

4Some 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.

5In this case, I note that the court matter was filed prior to the Application, and neither process is very far underway; however, my decision is primarily based on the significant overlap in the factual events underlying the Application and the court matter. Both are focused on the termination of the applicant’s employment. In order to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts and/or law, it is appropriate to defer the Application.

6Where 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).