HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ronald Gedeon
Applicant
-and-
Intertek Testing Solutions
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Gedeon v. Intertek Testing Solutions
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ronald Gedeon, Applicant
Self-represented
Intertek Testing Solutions, Respondent
Lauri A. Reesor, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of family status and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). A merits hearing is scheduled in this matter on September 28 and 29, 2015.
2On September 2, 2015, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal seeking an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that a mediation was scheduled to proceed in Quebec with respect to a complaint that he filed in Quebec. The respondent advised that it consented to the request to adjourn.
3The Tribunal was not advised that the applicant had initiated another proceeding in another province. On September 4, 2015, the Tribunal wrote to the parties seeking submissions on the issue of whether it is appropriate to defer the Application.
4On September 11, 2015, the applicant made submissions in which he does not address the issue of deferral but seeks to adjourn the hearing until the conclusion of the mediation at the Commission.
5On September 11, 2015, the respondent made submissions in support of the deferral of the Application.
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. However, the Tribunal must also 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.
7The applicant has initiated a complaint at the Commission “des norms du travail” (the “Commission”) in which he alleges amongst other things that he was not reinstated into a position in Montreal upon his return from a parental leave. Having considered this matter I am of the view that the subject-matter of the Application is identical to the subject-matter of the complaint filed at the Commission. I am disappointed that the Tribunal was not advised more promptly that another proceeding had been initiated by the applicant in another Province with respect to the same issue that the Tribunal must decide. If the Tribunal would proceed with the hearing in this matter, it could lead to inconsistent findings. Further, I have some concerns about the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with the Application since it may not fall within the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario. In these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the proceeding initiated by the Applicant before the Commission. For greater certainty, this means until the conclusion of not only the mediation, but also the hearing and the appeal of any decisions.
Order
The Tribunal orders:
a. The Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the proceeding at the Commission; and
b. The September 28 and 29, 2015 hearing dates are cancelled.
8The 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 reactivated after the conclusion of the other proceeding.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of September, 2015.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair