In interpreting this section, the Tribunal is guided by two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada: British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, (“Figliola”) and Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), . This Tribunal has considered how these decisions impact the Tribunal’s interpretation of section 45.1 in a number of cases, notably, Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board, (“Claybourn”). In Post v. Stevens Resources Group, (“Post”), the Tribunal reviewed these decisions and concluded: According to Figliola and Penner, once it has been confirmed that concurrent jurisdiction exists to decide the rights issues, there are three primary questions to consider in order to determine if another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. These are: whether there was an opportunity for the complainants or their privies to know the case to be met and have the chance to meet it; whether the previously decided legal issue was essentially the same as what is being complained of to the Tribunal; and whether it would be unfair to apply the doctrine of issue estoppel in the particular circumstances of the case? There is no question that a proceeding before an employment standards officer as a result of a complaint under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”) is a within the meaning of s. 45.1 of the Code: see Smith v. Singh, “proceeding” 2015 HRTO 887; Chen v. Harris Rebar, ; James v. Kuehne & Nagel, ; Windrem v. JF Moore Lithographers Inc., ; and Law v. Noonan, . The Tribunal’s jurisprudence is clear that in making a determination of whether a matter has been appropriately dealt with, the issue is not whether the applicant has received the result and remedy that he or she was hoping for. The applicable criterion is whether the other proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. See Sikorski v. Vaughan (City), 2015 HRTO 1740 at para. 15 and Taylor v. Hamilton (City), 2013 HRTO 1591.
In interpreting this section, the Tribunal is guided by two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada: British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, (“Figliola”) and Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), . This Tribunal has considered how these decisions impact the Tribunal’s interpretation of section 45.1 in a number of cases, notably, Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board, (“Claybourn”). In Post v. Stevens Resources Group, (“Post”), the Tribunal reviewed these decisions and concluded: According to Figliola and Penner, once it has been confirmed that concurrent jurisdiction exists to decide the rights issues, there are three primary questions to consider in order to determine if another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. These are: whether there was an opportunity for the complainants or their privies to know the case to be met and have the chance to meet it; whether the previously decided legal issue was essentially the same as what is being complained of to the Tribunal; and whether it would be unfair to apply the doctrine of issue estoppel in the particular circumstances of the case? There is no question that a proceeding before an employment standards officer as a result of a complaint under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c. 41 (“ESA”) is a “proceeding” within the meaning of s. 45.1 of the Code: see Smith v. Singh, 2015 HRTO 887; Chen v. Harris Rebar, ; James v. Kuehne & Nagel, ; Windrem v. JF Moore Lithographers Inc., ; and Law v. Noonan, . The Tribunal’s jurisprudence is clear that in making a determination of whether a matter has been appropriately dealt with, the issue is not whether the applicant has received the result and remedy that he or she was hoping for. The applicable criterion is whether the other proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. See Sikorski v. Vaughan (City), 2015 HRTO 1740 at para. 15 and Taylor v. Hamilton (City), 2013 HRTO 1591.
2017%20HRTO%20588%20Valle%20Final%2026-May-2017.docx