Jian Zhong v. Ontario Property Management Group Inc., 2013 HRTO 608

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jian Zhong

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Property Management Group Inc. and Saud Ahmad

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: April 12, 2013
Citation: 2013 HRTO 608
Indexed as: Zhong v. Ontario Property Management Group Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jian Zhong, Applicant
Grace Vaccarelli, Counsel

Ontario Property Management Group Inc., Respondent
Kumail Karimjee, Counsel

background

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether consideration of the Application in this case should be deferred until pending criminal proceedings have been concluded.

2The applicant filed this Application 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 disability, sex and sexual solicitation. Reprisal is also alleged.

3The applicant works as an administrator for the corporate respondent. The personal respondent was the applicant’s manager at the time the alleged events arose. The applicant alleges that she was repeatedly subjected to unwanted sexual advances by the personal respondent, that the corporate respondent did not properly address her complaints about this conduct, and that she was eventually subjected to reprisals for having raised the issue with the corporate respondent.

4The personal respondent has been charged with a criminal offence in relation to the events alleged by the applicant. Both the applicant and the corporate respondent’s managing director have been subpoenaed to give evidence in the criminal proceeding.

5The Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Intent to Defer and invited submissions by March 1, 2013 on whether the Application should be deferred until the criminal proceedings are resolved. Both the applicant and the corporate respondent take the position that the Application should be deferred. The personal respondent has made no submissions and the time for doing so has now passed.

6Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.1 enables the Tribunal to 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.

7Some 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.

8As the criminal charges stem from the same facts that form the substance of this Application, there is significant potential for a factual overlap between the two proceedings. This raises the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact if the Application runs concurrently with the criminal proceeding. In these circumstances, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

order

9This Application is deferred until the conclusion of the criminal proceeding against the personal respondent.

10The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal after the criminal proceeding has concluded.