Chaudhry v. Metro Freightliner Hamilton Inc., 2015 HRTO 1533

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sajid Chaudhry

Applicant

-and-

Metro Freightliner Hamilton Inc. and Jim Neeve

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: November 13, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1533

Indexed as: Chaudhry v. Metro Freightliner Hamilton Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sajid Chaudhry, Applicant

Self-represented

Metro Freightliner Hamilton Inc. and Jim Neeve, Respondent

Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On its own initiative, the Tribunal issue a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the applicant’s claim under the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”). The applicant opposes the deferral claiming that the two cases are not related.

3The 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. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case.

4However, the Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing proceeding based on overlapping facts and issues. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that other decision makers have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights statutes (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).

5The ESA proceeding appears to relate primarily to the applicant’s dismissal from his employment. In his claim the applicant alleges that his termination was “purely based on antagonism, grudge, ill will and discrimination”. Similarly from the narrative of the Application it is clear that the applicant is alleging that his dismissal was discriminatory.

6deferred - ESA proceedingI am not seized.