HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mark Reynolds
Applicant
-and-
Nestle Waters Canada, a Division of Nestle Canada Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Reynolds v. Nestle Waters Canada
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Nestle Waters Canada, a Division of Nestle Canada Inc., Respondent
Andrea York, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment. The respondent has not filed a Response.
2On March 31, 2014, the respondent delivered and filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding (the "RFOP") seeking the deferral of the Application and that the applicant provide a legible copy of his Application.
3The applicant has not responded to the RFOP and the time for doing so has passed. This Interim Decision addresses the RFOP.
Deferral
4The respondent indicates that the Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the proceeding commenced by the applicant at the Ontario Labour Relations Board ("OLRB") pursuant to section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act ("OHSA"). The respondent has attached a copy of the pleadings filed by the applicant at the OLRB.
5I note that in the Application the applicant indicated that the facts in the Application are being dealt with during the OHSA proceeding.
6The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of a 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 an Application where there are ongoing proceedings before the OLRB based on the same facts and issues. However, the Tribunal must also consider whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
7Both the Application and the proceedings before the OLRB relate to the reasons related to the applicant's termination from his employment with the respondent. Since the issues in the Application and the proceedings before the OLRB overlap significantly, proceeding with the Application at the Tribunal could very well lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the Application and the proceedings before the OLRB. The primary purpose of deferring an Application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. I find that, in all of the circumstances, deferring the Application is appropriate.
The legibility of the Application
8The respondent seeks an Order from the Tribunal compelling the applicant to provide a legible Application. I have reviewed the Application filed by the applicant, which is in cursive. I agree with the respondent that the Application is often illegible to read or to follow. However, I note that the applicant filed a typewritten Application with OLRB which is legible. Having considered the matter, I find that it is fair to direct the applicant to file a legible Application so that the respondent can have the opportunity to respond.
9The Tribunal orders:
a. The Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the OLRB and therefore the respondent need not file a Response at this time; and
b. Within 28 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a legible copy of the Application, which should preferably be typewritten.
10The 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 proceedings before the OLRB. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal's website, www.hrto.ca.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of May, 2014.
"Signed by"
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair