Clarke v. Tiny Town Daycare Inc., 2014 HRTO 501

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cassandra Clarke

Applicant

-and-

Tiny Town Daycare Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: April 9, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 501

Indexed as: Clarke v. Tiny Town Daycare Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tiny Town Daycare Inc., Respondent

Lori Flock, Representative

1This Interim Decision addresses the question of whether the Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the applicant’s claim under the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) for a leave of absence and public holidays pay.

2By Application filed on November 5, 2013, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her in employment because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”), when it terminated her employment. The applicant alleges that she was terminated because she was pregnant.

3The applicant attached to her Application copies of her ESA claim for a leave of absence and public holidays pay. There is no claim relating to the applicant’s termination. The ESA claim appears to be ongoing.

4On February 13, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The applicant and the respondent were directed to file submissions on the question of deferral by March 17, 2014.

5The respondent filed submissions on the deferral question on March 26, 2014. It objects to the deferral. The applicant did not file submissions.

Decision

6The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The Tribunal will generally defer to another legal proceeding that raises some or all of the same facts and issues as the Application. However, the Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

7In the circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded that deferral of the Application is appropriate. As noted above, the Application raises the issue of whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant when it terminated her employment. By contrast, the issue on the ESA claim is whether the applicant was entitled to a leave of absence or statutory holiday pay during her employment. I am not persuaded that the facts and issues raised in this Application overlap sufficiently with those in the proceeding before the Ministry of Labour relating to the ESA claim to warrant deferral of the Application.

order

8For the reasons set out above, the Application will not be deferred.

9The respondent is directed to file a full Response to the Application within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.