Belinda Karahalios v. mdBriefcase Inc. and Danny Weill, 2014 HRTO 643

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Belinda Karahalios Applicant

-and-

mdBriefcase Inc. and Danny Weill Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: May 6, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 643 Indexed as: Karahalios v. mdBriefcase Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Belinda Karahalios, Applicant Rachel Turnpenney, Counsel

mdBriefcase Inc., Respondent Mark Fletcher, Counsel

Danny Weill, Respondent Suzy Kauffman, Counsel

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether this Application should be deferred pending the resolution of a civil claim filed by the personal respondent against the corporate respondent.

2By Application dated August 28, 2013, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of disability under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended ("the Code"). Among other things, the applicant alleged that she was harassed and discriminated against by the personal respondent, who was her manager. The applicant claimed that the corporate respondent was aware of the manager's conduct before she resigned her employment.

3The corporate respondent requests that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of a civil claim filed by the personal respondent against it. After the applicant's resignation, the corporate respondent conducted an investigation and terminated the personal respondent's employment for just cause. By Statement of Claim dated May 23, 2013, the personal respondent claimed wrongful dismissal against the corporate respondent. In his claim, the personal respondent claims that the corporate respondent did not have just cause to terminate his employment. He claims that the corporate respondent did not conduct a proper investigation of the applicant's harassment allegations against him and that it dismissed him in a summary manner without appropriate performance warnings.

4In its Response, the corporate respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of the civil claim. The corporate respondent stated that the applicant's allegations against the personal respondent are directly in issue in the civil claim.

5The personal respondent stated that he does not require a deferral of the Application.

6The applicant opposed deferral on the basis that she is not a party to the civil claim. She also submitted that the civil claim does not deal with her allegation that the corporate respondent failed to properly investigate the discrimination she experienced.

Deferral of application

7The Tribunal has the discretion to defer proceedings before it, and has applied this discretion where there are parallel legal proceedings between the parties: s. 45 of the Code. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. Some 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 and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

8On balance, I find that deferral is not appropriate in this case. The legal issues in this case are distinct. The Application raises the issue of whether the respondents discriminated against the applicant because of disability. The issue in the civil proceeding is whether the corporate respondent had just cause to terminate the personal respondent's employment. I do accept that there is some overlap in the factual background between the Application and the civil claim. Both proceedings will involve evidence relating to the corporate respondent's investigation of the discrimination allegations that the applicant raised at the time she resigned. However, the Application raises broader issues, including whether the corporate respondent was aware of the personal respondent's conduct prior to the applicant's resignation and whether the corporate respondent is vicariously liable for the personal respondent's conduct during his employment. In addition, the corporate respondent has provided no information as to the status of the civil proceeding or the steps that have been taken in relation to it. In light of this, I cannot find that there is a significant risk of inconsistent decisions of fact or law in this case. On balance, I do not think it would be fair overall to the parties to defer consideration of this Application pending the outcome of the separate claim involving the two respondents to the Application.

Order

9For the reasons set out above, the corporate respondent's request for deferral is denied.