Gutcher v. Welland Retirement Suites, 2014 HRTO 610

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shawna Gutcher

Applicant

-and-

Welland Retirement Suites and Mike Hasani

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir
Date: April 30, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 610
Indexed As: Gutcher v. Welland Retirement Suites

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.

2In its Response (Form 2), the respondent argued that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of a criminal proceeding involving many of the facts in dispute in this Application. The applicant in her Reply (Form 3) opposed the respondent's request but offered no explanation for this position other than asserting that it is a separate legal proceeding.

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. Some factors that have been identified as 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 and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

5As the criminal charges stem from the same facts that form the substance of this Application, there is significant potential for a factual overlap between the two proceedings. This raises the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact if the Application runs concurrently with the criminal proceeding. In these circumstances, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

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 criminal proceeding.

7I am not seized.