Martin v. Chrysler Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 62

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tilmon Martin Applicant

-and-

Chrysler Canada Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: January 11 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 62 Indexed as: Martin v. Chrysler Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Chrysler Canada Inc., Respondent

Christopher Dunn, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on October 25, 2012 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 on the basis of age.

2The Application states that the applicant has filed a complaint with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (NSHRC). It clearly appears that this complaint is based on the same facts and issues that give rise to the Application.

3The Application states that the applicant's home address is in Nova Scotia and that his job with the respondent requires him to travel to Atlantic Canada. The Application indicates that the respondent is based in Ontario. The Application further states that the respondent has taken the position that the NSHRC is not the proper forum for the applicant's complaint, that the applicant should have filed his human rights complaint in Ontario.

4On November 22, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer in which it indicated that it might be appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding. The Tribunal asked the parties for written submissions as to why consideration of the Application should or should not be deferred. The Tribunal has received written submissions from the respondent.

5The respondent submits that the Tribunal should defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of the applicant's complaint to the NSHRC. The respondent submits that the complaint before the NSHRC is based on the same facts as contained in the Application.

DECISION

6The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). 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. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. 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. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

7I am of the view that it is appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the applicant's complaint before the NSHRC. I am satisfied that the applicant's complaint before the NSHRC is addressing an allegation of discrimination related to the facts and issues raised in the Application and that to proceed with the Application at this time would lead to concurrent proceedings with the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The fact that the NSHRC could potentially determine that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the applicant's complaint is not, in my view, a reason to proceed with the Application at this time.

8Where 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).

9I am not seized of this matter.