Gareau v. MGB Ventures Inc., 2014 HRTO 1559

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sylvie Gareau

Applicant

-and-

MGB Ventures Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: October 21, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1559

Indexed as: Gareau v. MGB Ventures Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

MGB Ventures Inc., Respondent

Holly MacMaster, Representative

1The applicant alleged that she was discriminated against because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code"). Specifically, she alleged that the respondent terminated her employment because she was pregnant. The respondent denied that it breached the Code. It submitted that it terminated the applicant's employment solely because she was not productive while at work.

2The hearing of the Application is scheduled for December 18, 2014.

REspondent's deferral request

3On September 19, 2014, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings in which it requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of a proceeding before the Ministry of Labour. On August 27, 2014, the Ministry of Labour advised the respondent that it was conducting an investigation into an alleged contravention of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 ("ESA"). The applicant filed a claim under the ESA setting out the same facts as those set out in her Application and alleging that she was reprised against contrary to s. 74 of the ESA.

4The respondent contacted the Ministry of Labour to ask it to defer its investigation of the applicant's complaint. However, the Ministry advised that it does not defer consideration of complaints. The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application due to a concern over the two proceedings occurring in parallel and the associated risk of inconsistent results.

5The applicant did not respond to the respondent's deferral request.

ANALYSIS

6The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application on such terms as it may determine (Rule 14.1 of the Rules of Procedure). Deferral of an application ensures that legal processes dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently. It is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal processes. Deferral is a discretionary measure applied to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same or similar issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

7Some 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 types of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer the Application, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

8One reason not to defer this Application is that a hearing has already been scheduled and a deferral will postpone the hearing in this case.

9On the other side of the equation, it may not be fair to the parties to be required to pursue more than one proceeding dealing with substantially the same issues at the same time in two different forums. Also, there is a potential for inconsistent findings given that the two proceedings are running concurrently and the two claims raise substantially the same facts and issues. Inconsistent findings by two different adjudicative bodies may occur because the cases are presented differently or because different statutes or rules may apply.

10Balancing all of these factors, I am satisfied that the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding is for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application until the ESA proceeding has been concluded or abandoned. If the applicant believes, on conclusion of the ESA proceeding, that her human rights issues have not been appropriately dealt with, she may ask to have her Application brought back on before the Tribunal. The parties should take note of Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure which outline the procedure by which the Application may be re-activated after the conclusion of the ESA proceeding. In particular, the parties should note that a request to reactivate an application must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other process.

Order

11For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal will defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding.

12The Registrar shall cancel the hearing scheduled for December 18, 2014.