Wege v. University of Waterloo, 2015 HRTO 908

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Cory Wege Applicant

-and-

University of Waterloo Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: July 9, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 908 Indexed as: Wege v. University of Waterloo

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Cory Wege, Applicant Justin Heimpel, Counsel

University of Waterloo, Respondent Sian Williams, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2On April 9, 2015, the Tribunal delivered the Response to the applicant, which contained a request to defer the Application because of an ongoing internal investigation.

3On June 30, 2015, the respondent requested that the Tribunal decide the matter of deferral prior to mediation. The applicant provided written submissions opposing deferral.

Background

4The respondent requests deferral because of an internal investigation. Although initially completed by the Associate Provost in December, 2014, the respondent states the investigation was re-opened and expanded after the respondent received the Application. The respondent considers the investigation to be ongoing.

5The applicant opposes deferral. He submits he was advised that the investigation was complete in December, 2014 and he was not made aware of any resumption, continuation or expansion of the investigation until he received the Response. He advises the respondent has not made contact with him about the alleged investigation nor provided a written summary of the findings that were presented in December as promised. The applicant submits that the deferral request is an attempt to delay and frustrate the proceeding.

Analysis and Decision

6The 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 (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure).

7Deferral 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. However, deferral is not automatic where the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. The Tribunal must also consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding.

8I have reviewed the submissions of the parties and find it is not appropriate to defer this Application. First, the respondent's internal investigation is not an independent decision-making process which could potentially lead to inconsistent findings of fact or law. The Tribunal, for example, has determined that an internal employer investigation is not a proceeding for the purposes of section 45.1: See Nash v. Ontario (Attorney General) 2010 HRTO 1530. The respondent's internal investigation is not a proceeding because it is a purely private internal process which does not require compliance with the rules of procedural fairness.

9In addition, the applicant alleges that the respondent has not provided him with the findings of the initial investigation from December, 2014, which concluded more than six months ago. It also has not communicated with him in any way about the continuation, resumption or expansion of the investigation except through the Response.

10In this case, deferral also does not appear to be the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding, given the lack of communication with the applicant by the respondent, and given that the internal investigation in any event is not an independent, decision-making process that could lead to inconsistent findings of fact or law. It is fair, just and expeditious for the Tribunal to proceed with the Application.

Order

11The respondent's Request to Defer is denied.