Marc Bery v. Law Cranberry Resort Limited and Don Buckle, 2017 HRTO 1140

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Marc Bery

Applicant

-and-

Law Cranberry Resort Limited and Don Buckle

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: September 1, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1140

Indexed as: Bery v. Law Cranberry Resort Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Law Cranberry Resort Limited and Don Buckle, Respondent

Frank Lento, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application alleging discrimination in because of disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent terminated his employment because he had expressed to his supervisors that he was feeling burnt out, stressed, depressed and anxious due to overwork.

2In addition to filing his Application, the applicant filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour for overtime pay and public holiday pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S. O. 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”). In his complaint to the Ministry of Labour, the applicant also alleged other breaches of the ESA.

3The respondent requested the early dismissal of the Application on the basis that the ESA proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

decision

4Section 45.1 of the Code states:

45.1 The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

5The substance of the Application is that the respondent discriminated or reprised against the applicant when it terminated his employment. The issue before the Ministry of Labour was whether it breached the ESA. An Employment Standards Officer found not contravention of the ESA. However, that decision does not deal with the issues raised in the Application, namely whether the respondents discriminated against the applicant when they terminated his employment. For this reason, the ESA proceeding cannot be said to have dealt with the substance of the Application.

order

6For these reasons, the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 is denied and the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

7I am not seized of this matter.