H.S. v. Children and Family Services for York Region, 2010 HRTO 137

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

H.S.

Applicant

-and-

Children and Family Services for York Region and Fariba Haditaghi

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: January 21, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 137

Indexed as: H.S. v. Children and Family Services for York Region

1This is an Application filed on June 25, 2009, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against her in employment, goods, services and facilities, and contracts on the basis of family status, marital status, creed, association with a person identified by another ground, and reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The respondents filed a full Response denying the applicant’s allegations, and requesting that the Application be deferred pursuant to Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The request was granted in 2009 HRTO 1846, Interim Decision dated November 2, 2009.

3On December 21, 2009, the applicant filed a Form 10 requesting that the Tribunal proceed to deal with the Application. According to the Tribunal’s Rules, where an application has been deferred, a party may make a request to re-activate the Application:

14.4 Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than (sixty) 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

4The applicant met the conditions of the Rules by filing her Request and a copy of the Court’s order, dated November 9, 2009, within 60 days.

5The respondents did not file a Form 11 in response to the applicant’s Request.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

6Deferral is a discretionary remedy aimed at avoiding concurrent proceedings, which could lead to inconsistent adjudicative decisions dealing with the same evidence and issues. It is clear that the Family Court proceeding, which was the basis for granting the deferral, has concluded. The Tribunal will therefore proceed to deal with the Application.

7I am not seized of this matter.