Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Suzanne Pike
Applicant
-and-
TD Bank Group and The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife Financial)
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Pike v. TD Bank Group
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Suzanne Pike, Applicant
Self-represented
TD Bank Group, Respondent
Pierre Bitz, Representative
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of a proceeding before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In my view, the Application should be deferred. The following are my reasons.
2On March 16, 2015, the applicant filed an Application with this Tribunal under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), against Toronto Dominion Insurance and Manulife Financial, which alleged that these respondents discriminated against her with respect to employment.
3On May 19, 2015, TD Bank Group filed a Response, which stated that the Application falls under federal rather than provincial jurisdiction because the applicant is an employee of TD Canada Trust Life Insurance which is a division of TD Bank, and that the Application therefore should have been filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
4On May 20, 2015, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife Financial) filed a Response, which denied the allegation of discrimination, but did not address the jurisdiction issue.
5On June 9, 2015, the applicant filed written submissions which stated that she contacted the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and was told that banks fall under federal jurisdiction, and insurance companies fall under provincial jurisdiction, and TD Insurance does not appear on its federal "list". Therefore, she stated, her Application falls under provincial jurisdiction because she was employed by TD Insurance, not TD Bank.
6On July 6, 2015, the applicant sent the Tribunal an email, which stated that she had commenced the process with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
7On July 15, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, which notified the parties that the Tribunal intended to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and invited the parties to file submissions addressing this issue.
8On August 2, 2015, the applicant filed written submissions, which opposed the deferral of her Application, and requested that a decision be made as to whether her Application falls under provincial or federal jurisdiction. Neither respondent filed submissions.
9Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provides that the 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. The Tribunal will 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.
10In Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-19:
Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.
11Some 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 type 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 and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.
12In my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. The applicant has initiated the process of filing a complaint against the respondents with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In Navaratnam v. Toronto Dominion Insurance, 2009 HRTO 230, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as outside its jurisdiction where, similar to the case at hand, the applicant was employed by TD Insurance. However, in the case at hand, the situation is somewhat complicated by the fact that the applicant also named Manulife Financial as a respondent. Deferring the Application will ensure that two proceedings dealing with the same facts and issues are not running concurrently, and preserve the applicant's right to have her Application reactivated if the Canadian Human Rights Commission dismisses her Application against one or both respondents because of jurisdiction.
13Therefore, the Application before this Tribunal will be deferred pending the conclusion of the proceeding before Canadian Human Rights Commission.
14Pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules, where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal's Rules and Forms can be found on its website.
15I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of November, 2015.
"Signed by"
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair