Babeya v. 559185 Ontario Ltd., 2016 HRTO 169

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alfred Babeya

Applicant

-and-

559185 Ontario Ltd. cob Can Tech Services and P & F Tool & Die,

a division of the Cosma International Group of Magna International Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: February 4, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 169

Indexed as: Babeya v. 559185 Ontario Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alfred Babeya, Applicant

Stephen Ellis, Counsel

559185 Ontario Ltd. cob Can Tech Services, Respondent

Paul Lewis, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request to defer this Application pending a determination of the applicant’s claim under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”).

2In his Application, the applicant alleges that he experienced discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to his employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). He alleges that the respondents failed to accommodate him and that his disability was a factor in his termination.The applicant filed a claim under the ESA for termination pay.

3In its Response to this Application, the respondent 559185 Ontario Ltd. cob Can Tech Services asked that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of the ESA proceeding. The applicant was served with a copy of the Response and invited to file written submissions concerning the respondent’s request for deferral. In his Reply, the applicant opposed deferral on the basis that the ESA proceeding will deal only with the issue of termination pay and will be concluded within a few weeks.

DECISION AND ANALYSIS

4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application on such terms as it may determine (Rule 14.1 of the Rules of Procedure). Deferral of an application ensures that legal processes dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently. It is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal processes, but is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances of each case.

5Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the types of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding.

6The respondent does not explain why it is requesting deferral in its Response. As noted above, the applicant opposes deferral on the basis that the ESA claim will not address all of the issues raised in his Application.

7Given the lack of significant overlap between the issues raised in the Application and ESA claim, I am of the view that deferral of this Application to the ESA process is not appropriate. In my view, the risk of inconsistent results in the circumstances of this case is minimal. Therefore, the respondent’s request for deferral is denied.

ORDER

8For the reasons set out above, the respondent’s deferral request is denied.

9I am not seized of this matter.