Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Nathalea Miller Applicant
-and-
Homes Instead Senior Care (North York Franchise), Sharon Galway, Brian Weinert, and Lindsay Reid Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: October 6, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1324 Indexed as: Miller v. Homes Instead Senior Care
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Nathalea Miller, Applicant Self-represented
Sharon Galway, Respondent Vilija Ycas, Representative
1The applicant has filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment.
2On August 7, 2015, the respondent Ms. Galway filed a Response in which she seeks the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of a proceeding initiated by the applicant pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”).
3On August 11, 2015, the Tribunal issued a letter seeking submissions from the parties on the issue of deferral. In response the applicant filed submissions in which she supports the deferral of the Application but only until October 15, 2015.
4No other parties responded to the request for submissions.
Decision
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.
6The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing ESA proceeding and if the subject matter is similar to that of the application, see Rogers v. Holcim (Canada), 2011 HRTO 86.
7Applying these principles to this case, I find it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the ESA claim. A review of the nature of the ESA claim filed by the applicant reveals that it will also, amongst other things, be examining the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s termination from employment. It would not be constructive to have two proceedings consider concurrently the same facts as this may lead to contrary findings. Therefore, it is most fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding, which would include any appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
8The Tribunal’s Rule 14 sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an Application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of October, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair