Ian Martin v. CornerStone Bed and Breakfast and Douglas McCue, 2009 HRTO 79

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ian Martin

Applicant

-and-

CornerStone Bed and Breakfast and Douglas McCue

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: January 22, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 79

Indexed as: Martin v. CornerStone Bed and Breakfast

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application filed on October 22, 2008 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in the provision of goods, services or facilities on the ground of disability.

2The facts which ground this Application are the subject of an ongoing prosecution under the Blind Persons’ Rights Act R.S.O. 1990, c. B.7 (the “BPRA”). The Tribunal was advised of a court date, January 6, 2009, but has not been informed whether the matter proceeded on that date or of the outcome.

3Section 45.1 of the Code provides that

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

4Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, defer consideration of an application. Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an application it will first give the parties notice of its intention to consider deferral of the Application and an opportunity to make submissions.

5The Tribunal has deferred an Application where the same facts underlay both a civil action and the Application to the Tribunal on the grounds that, although the civil action did not raise human rights issues, it was close to its resolution (Klein v. Toronto Zionist Council, 2008 HRTO 228). In such circumstances, the Tribunal is concerned about the prospect of concurrent proceedings, the potential for conflicting findings of fact or law and, when the other matter is close to resolution, whether it is fair, just and expeditious to defer the Tribunal’s proceeding.

ORDER

6In the circumstances the Tribunal orders the following:

i. The applicant is directed to provide the Tribunal with information about the status of the BPRA prosecution and a copy of any decision or order issued;

ii. If the BPRA matter has not been decided, the respondents may make written submissions on whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of this Application. The respondents’ submissions must be delivered to the applicant and filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this decision. The applicant may deliver and file submissions in response within 14 days of receipt of the respondents’ submissions; and

iii. If the BPRA matter has been decided, the respondents may make written submissions asserting that the BPRA proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code. Those submissions shall be delivered to the applicant and filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this decision. The applicant may respond by delivering his written submissions to the respondents and filing them with the Tribunal within 14 days of receipt of the respondents’ submissions.

7I am not seized of this matter.