Plant v. 2301402 Ontario Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1293

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lisa Plant

Applicant

-and-

2301402 Ontario Ltd. o/a Prince George Retirement Residence

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: September 30, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1293

Indexed as: Plant v. 2301402 Ontario Ltd

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lisa Plant, Applicant

Self-represented

2301402 Ontario Ltd. o/a Prince George Retirement Residence, Respondent

Justin Heimpel, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request to defer this Application pending a determination of the applicant’s claim under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”).

2In her Application, the applicant alleges that she was subject to sexual solicitation/advances/harassment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). She also appears to allege that the termination of her employment was contrary to the Code. In addition to filing her Application, the applicant also filed a claim under the ESA for termination pay, severance pay, unpaid wages, and vacation pay.

3In its Response to this Application, the respondent asked that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of the ESA proceeding. The applicant was served with a copy of the Response and invited to file written submissions concerning the respondent’s request for deferral. In her Reply, the applicant opposed deferral on the basis that the ESA proceeding would not address the sexual harassment that preceded her termination.

DECISION AND ANALYSIS

4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application on such terms as it may determine (Rule 14.1 of the Rules of Procedure). Deferral of an application ensures that legal processes dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently. It is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal processes, but is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances of each case.

5Some 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.

6The respondent does not explain why it is requesting deferral in its Response. As noted above, the applicant opposes deferral on the basis that the ESA claim will not address all of the issues raised in her Application.

7Given the lack of significant overlap between the issues raised in the Application and ESA claim, I am of the view that deferral of this Application to the ESA process is not appropriate. In my view, the risk of inconsistent results in the circumstances of this case is minimal. Therefore, the respondent’s request for deferral is denied.

ORDER

8For the reasons set out above, the respondent’s deferral request is denied.

9I am not seized of this matter.