Burke v. Fike Canada, Inc., 2015 HRTO 17

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Blaise Burke Applicant

-and-

Fike Canada, Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: January 6, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 17 Indexed as: Burke v. Fike Canada, Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Blaise Burke, Applicant Self-represented

Fike Canada, Inc., Respondent Paul G. Lewis, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, age and reprisal or threat of reprisal, in the area of employment, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that one of the reasons for which the respondent terminated his employment was because of his disability.

2This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s Request to Defer in its Response filed October 14, 2014. The respondent submits that the facts and/or issues in the Application are the same as in the applicant’s Statement of Claim filed at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and issued on August 12, 2014.

3Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, defer consideration of an application.

4Some 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 remedy 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.

5I find that the Statement of Claim does not make allegations of human rights infringements or reference to any human rights concerns, nor does it appear to seek remedies for any such alleged infringements. As such, at this stage, the facts, issues and remedies sought in the Court proceeding are not similar to those sought in the Application. I therefore do not find it appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the Court proceeding.

6As both parties have agreed to try mediation, the Tribunal shall proceed to schedule mediation.

ORDER

7The respondent’s request to defer the Application is denied.

8The Tribunal shall proceed to schedule mediation.

9I am not seized of this matter.