Tshibangu v. Citi Cards Canada Inc., 2014 HRTO 1256

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Didier Tshibangu Applicant

-and-

Citi Cards Canada Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: August 26, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1256 Indexed as: Tshibangu v. Citi Cards Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Didier Tshibangu, Applicant Self-represented

Citi Cards Canada Inc., Respondent Andrea York, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is deferring consideration of this Application, which alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of e.g. race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Reprisal is also alleged.

2The applicant self-identifies as a Black male. He worked for the respondent as a credit analyst but his employment was terminated. The applicant alleges that the termination was discriminatory.

3In addition to filing this Application with the Tribunal, the applicant also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“the CHRC”). If the Application falls within the jurisdiction of the CHRC then the Tribunal has no authority to deal with it, and vice versa.

4The CHRC initially indicated by letter dated June 10, 2014 that it saw no issue with its jurisdiction over the complaint. However, since then it sent a letter to the applicant indicating that the respondent had raised a question about the CHRC’s jurisdiction. The CHRC’s August 8, 2014 letter indicates that it will make a determination on the issue of jurisdiction.

5In the time between these two letters being issued the Tribunal wrote to the parties and asked for their submissions on whether this Application should be deferred until the CHRC had dealt with the complaint before it.

6The applicant’s position is that the Application should not be deferred because the CHRC “…indicated that it is very likely that this complaint doesn’t fall under its jurisdiction”. The respondent asks that it be deferred because as long as there are two proceedings outstanding that deal with the same subject matter there is a risk of inconsistent determinations being made.

7In my view the most expeditious and fair approach in these circumstances is to defer consideration of this Application. The reason for this is that the CHRC has already indicated its intent to examine the issue of jurisdiction. In order to avoid a duplication of effort by requiring the parties to provide submissions on the jurisdictional issue to both the CHRC and the Tribunal, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to allow the CHRC to complete the inquiry that it has already launched and to indicate whether it will process the applicant’s complaint. If the CHRC decides that it should process the complaint, then it makes sense for the Tribunal to allow the entirety of that process to run its course.

8Ultimately the Tribunal has to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction to deal with this Application, but that task will be assisted by the Tribunal having the benefit of the CHRC’s decision on the complaint before it. For these reasons consideration of the Application will be deferred until the CHRC has dealt with the complaint before it.

order

9The Application will be deferred until the CHRC has dealt with the complaint before it.

10The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure by which a party may seek to bring the Application back on after the conclusion of the CHRC process.