Neale Barber v. Glentel Inc., 2015 HRTO 134

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Neale Barber Applicant

-and-

Glentel Inc. Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman Date: January 28, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 134 Indexed as: Barber v. Glentel Inc.

1This Interim Decision addresses whether the Application should be deferred pending a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission ("CHRC") regarding whether the applicant's human rights claim falls within its jurisdiction.

2The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. The Application states there are no other legal proceedings in progress respecting the matters addressed in the Application.

3In its Response to the Application the respondent requested the Tribunal defer processing the Application as the applicant had filed a virtually identical claim with the CHRC approximately 5 months earlier.

4The applicant was directed to respond to the request to defer by January 7, 2015.

5On January 8, 2015, the applicant responded advising that the CHRC had determined it did not have jurisdiction and that he was waiting for documents confirming this. He asked the Tribunal to delay considering the deferral pending receipt of the documents.

6On January 14, 2015, respondent's counsel provided the Tribunal with a copy of the "Section 40/41 Report" prepared by CHRC staff which recommends that the CHRC not deal with the claim because the respondent's Retail Division, where the applicant was exclusively employed, does not fall within federal jurisdiction. The parties are invited to make submissions to the CHRC by February 5, 2015 which will be considered when it makes a decision.

7The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. In each case, the Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

8The applicant in this matter filed his claim with the CHRC prior to filing this Application with the Tribunal. The CHRC is currently engaged in consideration of the jurisdictional issue and it appears it will be decided in the very near future. Given these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to grant the respondent's request to defer the Application.

9The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the CHRC has issued its decision.

10I am not seized of this case.