Bleck v. Gerald Keith Culliton Professional Corporation, 2014 HRTO 238

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kerry-Anne Bleck

Applicant

-and-

Gerald Keith Culliton Professional Corporation o/a Culliton Law

and Gerald Keith Culliton

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: February 20, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 238

Indexed as: Bleck v. Gerald Keith Culliton Professional Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gerald Keith Culliton Professional Corporation o/a Culliton Law and Gerald Keith Culliton, Respondents

Self-represented

Introduction

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

2On October 7, 2013, the applicant filed this Application and advised that she also had filed a claim alleging reprisal and termination due to pregnancy in contravention of the Employment Standards Act (“ESA claim”).

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, dated November 27, 2013, requesting submissions on deferral by January 10, 2014. The respondents advised by letter dated December 9, 2013 that they consented to deferral. The applicant did not file any submissions.

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. The applicant filed a copy of the ESA claim and the narrative is almost identical to the narrative in this Application. If the two matters were to proceed concurrently, there is a real risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

order

8The Application is deferred pending the completion of the ESA claim.

9The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the ESA claim.