Fields v. Designers Gallery Inc., 2015 HRTO 736

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Crystal Fields

Applicant

-and-

Designers Gallery Inc. and Faige Weiss

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman

Date: June 4, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 736

Indexed as: Fields v. Designers Gallery Inc.

APPEARANCES

Crystal Fields, Applicant

Self-represented

Designers Gallery Inc. and Faige Weiss, Respondents

Robert Weiss, Representative

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex and family status. The applicant alleges that that her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy and parental leave.

2The Application was scheduled to be heard on June 1-2, 2015.

3At the beginning of the hearing on June 1, 2015, the respondents’ Representative requested that the Application be deferred because the corporate respondent has recently filed an appeal of an Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”) decision with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”). The appeal hearing has not been scheduled yet.

4The (undated) ESA decision under appeal finds that corporate respondent breached section 74(1)(a) of the ESA by terminating the applicant’s employment partly because she was on parental leave and did not return to work earlier than scheduled as requested by the respondent. The applicant was awarded damages totalling $10,900.00.

5The applicant consented to the respondents’ request to defer the Application.

DECISION

6Pursuant to Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

7The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. The Tribunal will generally defer an application where the parties are engaged in other legal proceedings raising similar facts and issues, particularly where the other decision-maker has the authority to make determinations with respect to facts and order remedies that parallel the application: see Aganeh Estate v. Mental Health Care Penetanguishene, 2011 HRTO 2280.

8Based on a review of the ESA Reasons for Decision, I find that the ESA proceeding and this Application address the same issues and allegations, particularly in relation to the circumstances surrounding the end of the applicant’s employment with the respondent. Further, the ESA decision awarded the applicant a monetary remedy relating to lost wages, which is the same type of remedy requested in the Application.

9I also note that the Tribunal has regularly deferred applications where there were ongoing Ministry of Labour proceedings when the facts and issues raised in the ESA claims overlapped with subject matter of the applications: see for example, Matechuk v. OLG at Thousand Islands, 2009 HRTO 324; Golon v. Addison Chevrolet Buick GMC, 2010 HRTO 448; and Ogbonna-Ehirim v. Holiday Inn & Suites Mississauga, 2011 HRTO 1750.

10Since the issues in the Application and the proceedings before the OLRB overlap significantly, proceeding with the Application at the Tribunal could very well lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the Application and the proceedings before the OLRB. The primary purpose of deferring an Application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. As noted, the appeal to the OLRB was commenced first and remains outstanding. Having considered all of the relevant circumstances, I find that deferring the Application is appropriate.

11The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the OLRB matter.

12The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the proceedings before the OLRB. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca.

13I am not seized.