Fran Staats v. Supply Chain Management Inc., 2014 HRTO 91

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Fran Staats

Applicant

-and-

Supply Chain Management Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: January 22, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 91

Indexed as: Staats v. Supply Chain Management Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Fran Staats, Applicant

Mitchell Bates, Counsel

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether this Application should be deferred pending the resolution of a civil claim commenced by the applicant.

2The applicant filed an Application dated October 29, 2013 alleging discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). Specifically, the applicant claimed that the respondent terminated her employment because of her disability. In addition to filing her Application, the applicant filed a civil claim for wrongful dismissal on March 18, 2013.

3On November 26, 2013, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the applicant. In this Notice, the Tribunal sought the applicant's submissions as to whether the Application should be deferred pending the resolution of her civil claim.

4By letter dated January 10, 2014, the applicant submitted that her Application should not be deferred because her civil claim did not seek damages for a violation of the Code under s. 46.1 of the Code. The applicant submitted that there was therefore no threat of duplication between the two proceedings.

analysis

5Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal's authority to defer consideration of an application. The Tribunal has the discretion to defer proceedings before it, and has applied this discretion where there are parallel legal proceedings between the parties. While deferral is not automatic, it is granted to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results. The Tribunal has held that some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type 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.

6In my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. Although the issues in the two proceedings are not identical, there is some overlap as both proceedings center on the termination of the applicant's employment. Due to this overlap, there is a potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings of fact. There is also a potential for overlapping remedies as the applicant has sought compensation for lost wages in both proceedings. A final factor that weighs in favour of deferral is the fact that the applicant filed her Statement of Claim five months before her Application and the respondent has already filed a Statement of Defence. Therefore the civil proceeding is at a more advanced stage than the proceeding before this Tribunal.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding before the Superior Court and any related appeals.

8It should be noted that, where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

Order

9For the reasons set out above, this Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding before the Superior Court and any related appeals.