Hughes v. 1378768 Ontario Inc. o/a City Centre Collision, 2016 HRTO 681

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kristy Hughes

Applicant

-and-

1378768 Ontario Inc. o/a City Centre Collision

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: May 19, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 681

Indexed as: Hughes v. 1378768 Ontario Inc. o/a City Centre Collision

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kristy Hughes, Applicant

Self-represented

1378768 Ontario Inc. o/a City Centre Collision, Respondent

Shane Campbell, Representative

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to reactivate her deferred Application, and the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application.

BACKGROUND

2On May 21, 2015, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

3On September 8, 2015, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued a letter deferring the Application pending the conclusion of an Employment Standards proceeding initiated by the applicant.

4On April 20, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), which requested that the Tribunal reactivate her deferred Application. She attached a copy of a Decision by an Employment Standards Officer (“ESO”) dated March 31, 2016.

5On April 20, 2016, the respondent filed a Response to the RFOP, which requested that the Application be dismissed because the matter was resolved in the applicant’s favour by the ESO.

REQUEST TO REACTIVATE APPLICATION

6Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file an RFOP with the Tribunal and deliver it to the other parties within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, and must include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

7In my view, the Application should be reactivated because the applicant has complied with the requirements in Rules 14.3 and 14.4.

8Accordingly, the applicant’s request that the Tribunal reactivate her deferred Application is granted.

REQUEST TO DISMISS APPLICATION

9Section 45.1 of the Code and Rule 22 of the Tribunal’s Rules provide that the Tribunal may dismiss an Application, in whole or in part, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. This Tribunal has found that the Supreme Court of Canada’s reasoning in British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52 and Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19 applies to the interpretation of s. 45.1 of the Code. See Gomez v. Sobeys Milton Retail Support Centre, 2011 HRTO 2297, and Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 129.

10Section 45.1 of the Code requires a two-part analysis: (1) whether there was another proceeding and, if so, (2) whether it appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

11The Tribunal directs that a two-hour preliminary hearing by teleconference be held to address whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code because another proceeding has appropriately dealt with its substance.

12The issue at the preliminary hearing will be whether the process before the ESO was a “proceeding”, and if so, whether the ESO’s Decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. See, for example, Smith v. Singh, 2015 HRTO 887. The parties should carefully review Smith because it dealt with circumstances similar to the case at hand. The Tribunal’s case law can be accessed online at: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/index.html.

13A Notice of Preliminary Hearing will follow from the Registrar’s Office. The parties shall deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases which they intend to rely upon no later than 14 days prior to the teleconference.

ORDER

14The Tribunal makes the following order and directions:

1. The Application is reactivated.

2. A two-hour preliminary hearing by teleconference shall be held to address whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code because another proceeding has appropriately dealt with its substance.

3. The parties shall deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases which they intend to rely upon no later than 14 days prior to the teleconference.

15I am not seized of this matter.