Felix v. Metafore Technologies Inc., 2014 HRTO 1579

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Hans Felix

Applicant

-and-

Metafore Technologies Inc., Jennifer Perez and Roberta Renna

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: October 27, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1579

Indexed as: Felix v. Metafore Technologies Inc.

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, alleges that the respondents discriminated against the applicant with respect to employment because of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, age and record of offences. It also alleges that the respondents reprised against the applicant contrary to s. 8 of the Code.

2In a July 18, 2014 Interim Decision in this matter, 2014 HRTO 1058, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s reprisal claim under s.45.1 of the Code, on the basis that the substance of that claim had been “appropriately dealt with” by an Employment Standards Officer’s (“ESO”) decision dismissing a claim that the corporate respondent reprised against the applicant contrary to s. 74(1) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”).

3In two emails to the Tribunal dated July 18 and July 23, 2014, the applicant objected to the above-noted Interim Decision on the basis that the ESO’s decision was a “non-final” decision which he had appealed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) and which was scheduled to be heard in August 2014. The applicant also contends that his reprisal claim under the Code, which is linked to “religious strife or persecution”, is distinct from his reprisal claim under the ESA. Based on the above, the applicant requests that the Tribunal “reopen” his file.

4In a follow-up email of September 10, 2014, the applicant submitted a copy of the OLRB’s September 5, 2014 decision in respect of his appeal, dismissing the applicant’s reprisal claim under the ESA, but allowing his appeal in respect of $204.48 in wages that were found to be owing to him.

5Although the applicant has not filed a Form 20 (Request for Reconsideration), it appears that the applicant is effectively asking the Tribunal to reconsider its July 18, 2014 Interim Decision dismissing part of his Application under s.45.1 of the Code.

6In the normal course, where a party requests reconsideration of a decision but fails to use the proper form, the Tribunal will direct the applicant to file a Form 20; and direct the respondent(s) to file a Form 21 (Response to Request for Reconsideration) before it will grant a party’s reconsideration request. (See Rules 26.2, 26.4, 26.6 and 26.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.)

7These steps are not necessary in the case at hand, however, because the Tribunal has determined that it ought to reconsider the July 18, 2014 Interim Decision on its own initiative pursuant to Rule 26.9, which states:

The Tribunal may reconsider a decision on its own initiative where it considers it advisable and appropriate to do so.

8The Tribunal considers it advisable and appropriate to reconsider its July 18, 2014 Interim Decision because it appears that its decision to dismiss part of the Application was made without affording the parties the opportunity to make oral submissions, as required by s.43(2) of the Code.

9Rule 26.10 states that where the Tribunal finds it appropriate to reconsider a decision on its own initiative, it will determine a procedure for rehearing all or part of the matter, which will include an opportunity for the parties to make submissions.

10In this case, the Tribunal will convene a teleconference hearing to rehear the respondents’ s.45.1 request. In particular, the Tribunal will convene a teleconference to hear the parties’ oral submissions on whether all or part of the Application should be dismissed because the substance of it was appropriately dealt with by the decision of the ESO or the OLRB in respect of the applicant’s complaint under the ESA.

11In preparation for the teleconference, the parties may find it helpful to review the Tribunal’s decision in Steel v. Johnson Controls Automotive Canada LP, 2014 HRTO 1199, at paras. 12 to 14, with respect to the application of s.45.1 where the decision in the other proceeding is under appeal.

12The parties ought also to be prepared to address whether the decision regarding the applicant’s reprisal claim under s.74(1) of the ESA appropriately dealt with the claim in this Application that the respondents reprised against the applicant for claiming or enforcing his rights under the Code.