Broad v. Salvation Army Canada, 2016 HRTO 1127

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Nicolette Broad Applicant

-and-

Salvation Army Canada Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: August 24, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1127

Indexed as: Broad v. Salvation Army Canada

APPEARANCES

Nicolette Broad, Applicant Self-represented

Salvation Army Canada, Respondent Christine E. LeBlanc, Counsel

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect employment because of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation and family status.

2The applicant identifies herself as a lesbian and indicates that she and her partner have two children. The applicant also identifies herself as being of Native American and Italian ancestry. The applicant states that she experienced harassment and differential treatment in her employment with the respondent because of her sexual orientation, family status and because of her Native American ancestry and appearance.

3On April 28, 2016, the applicant filed documents to complete the Application and also filed an e-mail message in which she indicated that the respondent has hired an investigator/mediator to address her concerns and that the parties are trying to settle the matter. The applicant requested that the Application be “put on hold” or deferred while the parties pursue settlement.

4The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer on June 23, 2016, which advised the parties that it may be appropriate to defer the Application pending the completion of the respondent’s internal investigation, pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions regarding the issue of deferral.

5The respondent filed submissions on July 22, 2016 in which it requested that the Application be deferred until late 2016. The respondent submitted that the parties are actively working towards a settlement and that the respondent hired an external investigator to investigate the applicant’s concerns. The respondent states that the investigation has been “paused” because the parties are engaged in settlement discussions. The respondent submitted that, while a final settlement has not yet been reached, several actions have been taken to address the applicant’s concern. These actions include training and changes to reporting relationships. The respondent states that the investigation will resume if the parties are not able to resolve the outstanding issues in the near future. The respondent submitted that the applicant appears satisfied with the action plan under discussion and that parties would prefer that the Application be deferred pending completion of the action plan and a determination regarding whether further investigation is required. The respondent submitted that requiring it to file a Response would be very harmful to the ongoing resolution process.

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). 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. In this case, no other legal proceeding dealing with the facts and issues arising in this Application has been initiated. Moreover, the Tribunal does not defer its proceedings, or grant adjournments, to facilitate negotiations between the parties. See Kolenski v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2014 HRTO 831. The Tribunal does, however, offer mediation to assist parties in resolving their disputes.

Order

7The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The Application shall not be deferred;
2. The respondent shall file a Response (Form 2) within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision; and,
3. The applicant may file a Reply within 14 days of receiving the respondent’s response.

8I am not seized.