Jacob v. Jathy Inc. o/a Circles, 2015 HRTO 489

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Coleen Jacob

Applicant

-and-

Jathy Inc. o/a Circles, Carrie Berlinghoff, Tammy Dupuis, Braden Pentland and Teresa Lydon

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman

Date: April 17, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 489

Indexed as: Jacob v. Jathy Inc. o/a Circles

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Coleen Jacob, Applicant

Self-represented

Jathy Inc. o/a Circles, Carrie Berlinghoff, Tammy Dupuis, Braden Pentland and Teresa Lydon, Respondents

Jordan Kirkness, Counsel

BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ethnic origin and disability.

2In Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1398 issued on September 18, 2014, the Tribunal found that the Application should be deferred until an Employment Standards Act ("ESA") proceeding has been concluded. The ESA proceeding concerns the respondent's decision to reduce the applicant's bonus for a three-month period.

3An appeal of the ESA order is scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Labour Relations Board ("OLRB") on April 21, 2015.

REQUEST FOR AN ORDER DURING PROCEEDINGS

4The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant's March 2, 2015 Request for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") (Form 10). In her RFOP, the applicant requests that:

A) The Application be re-activated because it should not have been deferred pending the OLRB proceeding. The Application involves a much bigger issue and resulted in the sequence of events that eventually led to a loss of her job;

B) The Tribunal Application be consolidated with the OLRB proceeding and that the two matters be heard together;

C) The Application be amended to increase the requested monetary remedy to $100,000.00; and

D) The respondent be ordered to produce her pay stub information.

5The respondent provided a Response to a Request for an Order (Form 11) on March 13, 2015.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

6The Tribunal deferred the Application until the ESA proceeding is concluded. The ESA proceeding remains ongoing. Nothing has changed and the Application remains deferred. A request to reactivate the Application may be made once the ESA proceeding is concluded. At that time the applicant may also ask to amend her Application. The Tribunal's Rules 16 and 17 deal with the process for production and disclosure of documents.

7The Tribunal has no authority to consolidate its proceedings with ESA proceedings.

OTHER ISSUE

8The RFOP refers to the parties' settlement discussions during the mediation session in respect of the ESA proceedings. The applicant is reminded that mediation and settlement discussions are confidential and should not be referred to or relied on before the Tribunal or in other proceedings without consent of all parties. The respondent does not consent to their use here. In the circumstances the Registrar is directed to remove the RFOP from the file and return it to the applicant.

ORDER

9The RFOP is denied.

10I am not seized of this matter.