Sabina Augustin v. Platinum Electrical Contractors Inc., 2014 HRTO 230

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sabina Augustin

Applicant

-and-

Platinum Electrical Contractors Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: February 20, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 230
Indexed as: Augustin v. Platinum Electrical Contractors Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Platinum Electrical Contractors Inc., Respondents

Harold Rolph, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2On January 17, 2014, the respondent filed its Response and requested that the Application be deferred because the respondent was advised by letter from the Ministry of Labour, dated October 7, 2013, that the applicant had filed a claim alleging unpaid wages and reprisal in contravention of the Employment Standards Act ("ESA claim"). The respondent has no further particulars of this claim, and the applicant has provided none.

3The applicant was to file her Reply and submissions with respect to deferral by February 10, 2014 but did not do so.

decision and analysis

4The Application is deferred pending resolution of the ESA claim.

5The 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, but is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances of each case.

6Some 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, having regard to the status of each proceeding.

7In the circumstances of this case, I find that deferral is appropriate. While there likely are some differences in the nature of the ESA claim and the Application, the applicant has alleged reprisal in both the Application and the ESA claim, and it appears that the claims arise out of the same circumstances. If the two matters were to proceed concurrently, there is a real risk that the two proceedings could have inconsistent findings of fact.

order

8The Application will be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's ESA claim.

9The 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 after the applicant's claim under the ESA has been concluded.