Pratt v. TAG Management, 2014 HRTO 25

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Pratt Applicant

-and-

TAG Management Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: January 7, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 25 Indexed as: Pratt v. TAG Management

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Elizabeth Pratt, Applicant ) Self-represented TAG Management, Respondent ) Richard Maddern, Representative

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of age, sex, disability and reprisal.

2The respondent declined to file a Response to the Application, requesting instead that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of an allegedly related proceeding; in this case, a claim under the Employment Standards Act. The applicant opposes the request to defer claiming that the two cases are not related.

3The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case.

4However the Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing proceeding based on overlapping facts and issues. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that other decision makers have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).

5It is somewhat unclear what the applicant is claiming in the employment standards proceeding, however the claim does appear to relate primarily to the applicant’s dismissal from her employment. Similarly, while it is not entirely clear from the narrative of the Application how her dismissal is related to the discrimination claims set out in the Application, based on the claims for remedial relief it is clear that the applicant is alleging that her dismissal was discriminatory. The lack of clarity in the Application can be resolved in due course; however, it is clear that a central issue in both proceedings will be the reasons for the applicant’s dismissal from employment. The employment standards claim was commenced before this Application and may be concluded in the not too distant future. In all of the circumstances it seems to me appropriate that this Application be deferred until this other claim is concluded.

6The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the employment standards proceeding.

7I am not seized.