Jager v. Stornoway Productions, 2015 HRTO 1577

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Jager Applicant

-and-

Stornoway Productions and Jen Mitchell Oddi Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Bruce Best Date: November 20, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1577 Indexed as: Jager v. Stornoway Productions

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Angela Jager, Applicant Dina Arkhipov, Paralegal

Stornoway Productions, Respondent Morris Cooper, Counsel

Jen Mitchell Oddi, Respondent Jessica Young, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application filed under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex, including sexual harassment, and reprisal. The Application noted that a “parallel and simultaneous complaint” had also been filed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC 1985, c. H-6, as amended (“CHRA”) with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) against Stornoway Communications (the “federal complaint”), which the applicant claims is the parent company of the organizational respondent “Stornoway Productions.”

2A Response was filed on behalf of Stornoway Communications Group (“SCG”) which claims that there is no such organization or corporation as “Stornoway Productions”. SCG further sought dismissal of the Application on the basis that the allegations were outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as SCG is a broadcaster and therefore federally regulated. SCG also provided copies of contracts between the applicant and various other corporate entities, which it indicates are part of SCG, which it suggests are therefore also federally regulated. SCG also disputes that there was an employment relationship, claiming the applicant was an independent contractor.

3A separate Response was filed on behalf of the individual respondent, also seeking early dismissal on the basis that the subject matter of the Application is within exclusive federal jurisdiction. The individual respondent provided a business name search showing that “Stornoway Productions” is in fact the registered business name of another corporation, NBBA Enterprises Ltd. The individual respondent further suggests that one of the subsidiaries of SCG also might use the business name “Stornoway Productions”.

4The applicant objects to the request to dismiss, and asks that the Tribunal proceed with the Application. She claims that Stornoway Productions is provincially regulated. She also provides screenshots of a website referring to another corporation, “Stornoway Productions Inc.”, though she did not provide any documentation confirming that such a corporation exists, or if it does what jurisdiction it operates under.

5Following receipt of the applicant’s submissions on the Request to Dismiss, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the outcome of the federal complaint. SCG filed brief submissions in response to the Notice which reiterated its position that the matter is federal. Neither the applicant nor individual respondent filed further submissions.

Analysis and Decision

6The applicant is not raising some allegations against Stornoway Communications and different allegations against Stornoway Productions. Rather, she claims in para 4 of her Reply that she was simultaneously employed by both, and, as noted in Part 14 of the Application, she is filing a ‘parallel and simultaneous complaint’ with the CHRC. The facts and issues to be determined appear to be the same in both the Application and the federal complaint.

7There is no dispute between the parties that Stornoway Communications is, as a broadcaster, a federal undertaking. The allegations against it can therefore be dealt with under the CHRA without having to address any jurisdictional questions.

8However, there is uncertainty respecting the relationship between the various corporate entities, uncertainty about what organization or corporate entity “Stornoway Productions” in fact refers to and whether it is a federal or provincial undertaking, and uncertainty about whether the applicant was doing work for just Stornoway Communications, or for both Stornoway Communications and Stornoway Productions. It is, for example, possible that during the federal complaint process it may become apparent that one or more of the companies involved is in fact a provincially regulated company that may also be liable should the allegations be proven.

9The Tribunal has deferred applications where the applicant has filed a claim under both the Code and the CHRA and there was uncertainty about whether the respondent fell under provincial or federal jurisdiction; see Davies v. Compton Cable T.V., 2009 HRTO 178. I agree with the result in that case and find that in the circumstances that deferral of this Application is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding.

ORDER

10The Application is deferred pending the conclusion of CHRA proceedings. The parties’ attention is directed to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on once the federal complaint is resolved.