HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lynton Levine
Applicant
-and-
Future Sales Ltd.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Levine v. Future Sales Ltd.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Lynton Levine, Applicant
Leeanne C. Beilli, Representative
Future Sales Ltd., Respondent
Xavier Navarrete Counsel
1The applicant has filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment.
2On August 7, 2015, the respondent filed a Response to the Application in which it seeks the dismissal and/or the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of another proceeding. It appears that the parties entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement in which the parties are required to refer matters to binding arbitration. On August 7, 2015, counsel for the respondent wrote to the applicant’s representative advising that an arbitrator should be selected, failing which an application would be commenced at the Superior Court of Justice under s. 10 of the Arbitration Act. The Response does not address the allegations in the Application.
3The applicant filed a Reply in which he takes the position that there is currently no other proceeding and that the applicant does not have the financial resources to pay for another proceeding. He therefore opposes the deferral of the Application.
DECISION
4There is no basis to dismiss the Application, and indeed the respondent has made no submissions in support of this Request.
5The 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 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The Tribunal must 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.
6In this case, it is the respondent who seeks to defer the Application pending a proceeding which has not yet commenced. The applicant has advised that he is not in a financial position to pay for the costs associated with arbitration. He has therefore sought to enforce his rights under the Code by initiating the Application.
7I am of the view that the circumstances of this case are very similar to those in the Millar v. Power Tax Corporation, 2012 HRTO 1578 in which the respondent initiated an Application in Court and sought the deferral of the Application. The Tribunal states at para. 15:
I share the applicant’s concern that deferral in these circumstances may be a barrier to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of human rights applications. The Tribunal process is designed to ensure effective and timely access to justice for those who allege violations of the Code. Deferral, in general, is aimed at avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. However, in these circumstances, deferral may encourage multiple proceedings, forum shopping, and delay, by giving respondents an incentive to commence parallel proceedings to lead to deferral of HRTO proceedings.
8Similarly, in this case I am of the view that even if there was another proceeding initiated by the respondent it is not appropriate to defer this Application as it would result to unfairness to the applicant.
ORDER
9The Tribunal Orders:
a. The respondent’s Request to defer and/or dismiss the Application is denied;
b. Within 21 days the respondent must file a fulsome Response which addresses all of the allegations in the Application; and
c. Within 14 days of the receipt of the Response the applicant may file a Reply, if appropriate.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 6^th^ day of October, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair