BOARD OF INQUIRY (Human Rights Code)
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the complaint by Eleanor Iness, dated January 10, 1995, alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of receipt of public assistance by Caroline Co-operative Housing Inc.;
B E T W E E N:
Ontario Human Rights Commission
-and-
Eleanor Iness
Complainant
-and-
Caroline Co-operative Housing Inc.
and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Anne McKellar
Date: July 13, 2001
Board File No.: BI-0320-00
Decision No.: 01-016-I
INTRODUCTION
This is an interim decision respecting case management issues arising out of the request by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation ("CMHC") for a stay of proceedings pending the determination of an Application for Judicial Review it intends to bring in respect of the Board's interim decision dated June 13, 2001, whereby CMHC was made a party to the Complaint of Eleanor Iness, dated January 10, 1995.
THE ISSUES
The Board has received a considerable amount of correspondence from the parties since the release of its June 13, 2001 decision. For clarity, the issues that have been raised in these letters, and which the Board feels require some case management at this time are as follows:
(1) CMHC's request for a stay pending the determination of its intended judicial review application;
(2) CMHC's request for an extension of time to file its response until after the Board has determined whether or not to grant a stay; and
(3) The Complainant's request that hearing dates be set.
THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
In some cases, the parties have already indicated their positions on the above issues.
Both the Ontario Human Rights Commission ("the Commission") and the Respondent, Caroline Co-operative Housing Inc. ("Caroline") consent to CMHC's request for a stay pending the determination of its intended judicial review application. The Complainant opposes this request.
The Commission also consented to CMHC's request for an extension of time to file its Response until after the Board had determined whether to grant a stay. Caroline did not indicate its position on this issue. The Complainant consented to an extension, provided the issue of the stay could be dealt with by September 4, 2001, and indicated that it would respond to any further requests for an extension past that date as they arose. This position was set out in a letter dated July 5, 2001 from CMHC to the Board.
By letter dated July 5, 2001, the Board advised the parties that "CMHC's response need not be filed until after a determination of whether or not a stay will be granted."
The Complainant subsequently wrote to the Board directly. The Complainant's letter dated July 6, 2001, sets out her opposition to the granting of a stay, and also contains the following paragraph:
Even if the Respondent CMHC could establish sufficient factors weighing in favour of a stay of the commencement of hearing in this matter pending the application to Divisional Court, the complainant is of the view that Respondent CMHC should provide a Response to the Statement of Facts and Issues to enable the parties to continue to prepare for hearing. Furthermore, even if the Respondent CMHC could establish sufficient factors weighing in favour of a stay of the commencement of hearing in this matter pending the application to Divisional Court, the complainant would request that hearing dates for this complaint be scheduled now rather than after the completion of the application in order that further delay would be avoided.
Having regard to the correspondence that preceded it, the Board interprets the Complainant's July 6, 2001 letter not as disputing the Board's July 5, 2001 direction that CMHC's response need not be filed until after the stay had been determined, but as clarifying its position that once the stay request had been dealt with, such Response should be filed promptly, even should the Board decide to grant the stay. Consequently, the other parties should be prepared to address this matter in the context of any submissions they make in respect of the stay request.
HOW TO PROCEED
Since the Complainant opposes CMHC's request for a stay, the Board is of the view that it must have submissions from the parties prior to determining whether or not to grant a stay. The Board proposes to deal with the request for a stay by way of written submissions. Counsel for CMHC is on vacation until the end of July. The Board is not aware of the vacation schedule or prior hearing commitments of the other parties. The Board directs CMHC to provide it with written submissions in support of its request for a stay by August 8, 2001. In the event the Commission and Caroline wish to make submissions in support of the request for a stay, they are directed to do so in writing by the same date. The Complainant is directed to provide the Board and the other parties with its written submissions in response to CMHC's submissions by August 15, 2001. CMHC may file reply submissions by August 20, 2001.
In their submissions the parties will be expected to address the Board's previous decisions in Fiorini v. Di Poce Management Ltd., [1997] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 4, and Moffat v. Kinark Family and Child Services, (BI 0056-95) (unreported decision dated December 13, 1995). Copies of these decisions are enclosed. The parties will note the Board's expressed disinclination to consider the question of a stay in the absence of a perfected Application for Judicial Review.
The Board will undertake to decide the issue as soon thereafter as possible, and in any event prior to September 7, 2001.
The Board declines the Complainant's request that it convene a conference call for the scheduling of hearing dates at this time. The Registrar will contact the parties shortly with respect to this matter.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 13th day of July, 2001
Mary Anne McKellar, Vice Chair