Cook v. Pillar to Post Inc., 2017 HRTO 1382

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Gregg Cook Applicant

-and-

Pillar to Post Inc. Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: October 18, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1382 Indexed as: Cook v. Pillar to Post Inc.

Written Submissions

Gregg Cook, Applicant Self-represented

Pillar to Post Inc., Respondent Krishana Persaud, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request that the Tribunal defer the Application pending the outcome of an arbitration proceeding under the franchise agreement between the parties.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of disability and family contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). He also alleged reprisal contrary to the Code. The main issue raised in the Application is whether certain requirements imposed by the respondent on franchisees and/or the more strict enforcement of these requirements have a differential impact on the applicant because of his disability.

3The parties were signatories to franchise agreement. One of the parties (based on the parties’ submissions, it is unclear which) availed themselves of the arbitration mechanism contained in that franchise agreement.

4The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the arbitration. The applicant opposed the deferral request.

Findings

5The 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). Deferral of an application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

6The Tribunal generally considers the following factors in determining whether to defer consideration of an application: the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding; the type of remedies available in the other proceeding; and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer the application having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

7As noted above, the main issue raised in the Application is whether certain requirements imposed by the respondent on franchisees and/or the more strict enforcement of these requirements have a differential impact on the applicant because of his disability. By contrast, it appears that the arbitration will consider a variety of issues relating to the franchise agreement. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the facts and issues raised in this Application overlap sufficiently with those in the arbitration proceeding to warrant deferral of the Application. Among other things, it is not clear that the arbitrator will be addressing the Code issues raised in the Application. It is also unclear when the arbitration is likely to take place. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that there is a serious risk that the Application and the arbitration will be running concurrently thereby giving rise to the possibility of inconsistent results.

Order

8For these reasons, the respondent’s deferral request is denied.

9The Tribunal will continue to process the Application. The applicant has agreed to mediation in this case, but the respondent has not. Within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent must advise the Tribunal whether it is willing to take part in a mediation. If so, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation and advise the parties of the time, date, and location of the mediation by Notice of Mediation. If not, the Tribunal will schedule a hearing and advise the parties of the time, date, and location of the hearing by Notice of Hearing.