John v. SAS Petroleum Technologies, 2015 HRTO 620

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kelli John

Applicant

and

SAS Petroleum Technologies, Dwayne MacDonald, Lance Mullett and Kim Williamson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: May 12, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 620

Indexed as: John v. SAS Petroleum Technologies

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

SAS Petroleum Technologies, Dwayne MacDonald, Lance Mullett and Kim Williamson, Respondents

Cézanne Charlebois, Counsel

1By Application filed February 16, 2015, the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her in her employment on the basis of her race, colour, disability, family status and marital status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the Code). The applicant alleges that she experienced harassment in the workplace, that the workplace was a poisoned environment and that these experiences have resulted in her disability.

2This Interim Decision considers whether to defer this Application pending completion of the proceeding that is concurrently before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”). The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application on March 25, 2015 pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure. The Notice invited the parties to provide submissions as to why the Application should or should not be deferred.

3The applicant did not provide submissions.

4The respondents support deferral. They state the facts and issues in both proceedings are identical and consequently there is a potential risk that there will be contradictory findings of fact and outcomes.

ANALYSIS

5Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. In considering whether to defer an application, the Tribunal will look at the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding and whether it would be fair to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

6It would appear that there is a significant degree of overlap between the facts and issues in this Application and the proceeding before the WSIB. Under both the Code and s.13(5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, the applicant may be eligible for compensation for mental stress resulting from the harassment and poisoned work environment. The WSIB will likely examine the actions of corporate respondent’s employees to determine whether the applicant experienced mental stress as a result of the workplace environment. The Tribunal would engage in a similar inquiry in order to determine whether the respondents’ conduct was discriminatory. If the two proceedings were allowed to proceed concurrently, there is a real risk that WSIB and the Tribunal could make inconsistent findings on the same issues.

ORDER

7For the reasons stated above, the Application is deferred.

8The Tribunal’s Rule 14 sets out the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of another proceeding.

9I am not seized of this matter.