In Jarrett v. Vance, 2012 HRTO 24, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a human rights application where the employee had also filed a wrongful dismissal claim in court.

In reaching this decision, the Tribunal stated:

I am satisfied that the applicant's Statement of Claim and this Application are based on the same facts and that both assert the same type of allegations, as well as seek similar remedies. In fact, the applicant's narrative in both the Application and the Statement of Claim are virtually identical. While the Statement of Claim makes no explicit reference to the Code, it is clear that the applicant's allegations concern the same events that are alleged to constitute discrimination and reprisal in the Application and that both assert the same rights with respect to unfair dismissal and failure to provide work

If an application falls within the circumstances described in section 34(11) of the Code, the Tribunal is precluded from proceeding with the application because the language in section 34(11) is a mandatory bar. Given that the Statement of Claim and Application both make claims with respect to disability discrimination, unfair treatment, wrongful dismissal and failure to return to work, as well as seek similar remedies, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application. The overlap present in the civil proceeding and this Application is exactly what section 34(11) of the Code was intended to prevent (paras. 16-17).