The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has deferred an application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment against Walmart Canada, citing ongoing related proceedings before the Divisional Court and the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).
The tribunal ruled that postponing its consideration of the application was the most “fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding,” given the potential for overlapping facts and remedies in the concurrent cases.
Allegations and request for deferral
J.P., the applicant, filed a complaint with the HRTO alleging discrimination based on multiple grounds, including race, ancestry, ethnic origin, citizenship, disability, gender identity, and reprisal, under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. The application also included allegations of harassment and wrongful termination.
Walmart Canada, the respondent, opposed the application and requested that the tribunal defer its consideration. The company argued that two ongoing proceedings — one before the Divisional Court and another before the OLRB — addressed overlapping factual and legal issues. J.P. opposed the request for deferral but did not provide reasons.
Legal basis for deferral
The tribunal relied on its authority under section 45 of the Code and Rule 14.1 of its Rules of Procedure, which allow for the deferral of an application when another proceeding is dealing with the same or related issues.
The tribunal referenced Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, which outlined considerations for deferral, including the nature of the other proceedings, the type of remedies available, and whether deferral would be fair to all parties. In that case, the tribunal noted that deferral is not automatic but serves to prevent inconsistent decisions and duplication of evidence.
In this instance, the tribunal found that the ongoing proceedings before the OLRB and the Divisional Court involved “overlapping facts regarding the claims of harassment and circumstances surrounding the termination of the applicant’s employment.” It further noted that running the cases concurrently “raises the potential for duplication of evidence, and the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact and law.”
Tribunal’s ruling
The tribunal granted the respondent’s request, ordering that the application be deferred until the conclusion of both the Divisional Court and OLRB proceedings. While one of the Divisional Court cases appeared to be concluded, the tribunal determined that the remaining case before the OLRB was still ongoing, necessitating the deferral.
Once those proceedings are completed, either party may request the reactivation of the HRTO application. Under Rule 14.4 of the tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the request must be made within 60 days of the conclusion of the other proceedings and must include a copy of the decision or order from those cases.
With this ruling, the HRTO has signalled that it will not proceed with a human rights application where related litigation is ongoing, reinforcing the principle that tribunals should avoid duplicative proceedings and potential conflicts in legal findings.
For more information, see Parikh v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp, 2025 HRTO 593 (CanLII).
