G.M. v. X Tattoo Parlour, 2015 HRTO 1491

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

G.M. as represented by her Litigation Guardian D.M.

Applicant

-and-

X Tattoo Parlour and F.G.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Bruce Best

Date: November 4, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1491

Indexed as: G.M. v. X Tattoo Parlour

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

X Tattoo Parlour and F.G., Respondents

Martin Kerbel, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, including sexual harassment, sexual solicitation or advances, gender identity, and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c.H19, as amended.

2As this Application has been filed on behalf of a minor, the names of the applicant and her litigation guardian are anonymized pursuant to Rule 3.11.1.

3The Application indicated that criminal charges had been laid against the individual respondent arising out of the same incidents giving rise to this Application, that a criminal trial date was set for September 2015, and that the individual respondent was intending to plead not guilty. The applicant did not request that the Application be deferred. She indicated that materials relating to the criminal proceedings were not available to her because the matter was still before the courts.

4The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer and gave the parties an opportunity to make written submissions by October 17, 2015 respecting whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of the criminal proceedings. Counsel for the respondents filed a letter advising that the individual respondent had pleaded guilty, and that a sentencing date was set for December 8, 2015. The applicant has not filed any submissions.

5The Tribunal is mandated, under s.40, to adopt the most fair, just and expeditious manner to resolve applications before it. Rather than deferral, which would require the parties to take additional procedural steps to re-activate the Application in a very short time, I find the most fair and expeditious way to proceed is to extend the time for filing a Response. The outcome of the sentencing hearing may well be relevant to these proceedings, and it would not be expeditious to require the filing of a Response now that may need to be amended in a matter of weeks. The Response shall be filed by January 12, 2016, 35 days after the scheduled sentencing hearing.

6This extension of time is granted based on the fact that the sentencing hearing is imminent. Should the sentencing hearing be adjourned or rescheduled, either party may, if they choose, make a Request for an Order During Proceedings to defer the matter at that time. However, absent any such Request, the date for filing the Response ordered above will stand, and the Application will continue to be processed by the Tribunal.

7As the applicant is not a party to the criminal proceedings, I also direct counsel for the respondents to advise the applicant and the Tribunal when the criminal proceeding is complete, and to provide a copy of any decisions or orders arising out of those proceedings.

ORDER

8Counsel for the respondents shall notify the applicant and Tribunal when the criminal proceeding is complete, and shall provide a copy of any decisions or orders issued in those proceedings.

9The Respondents shall file their Response by January 12, 2016.

10The Application is not deferred.

11I am not seized.