Mildred Chamberlain v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services et al., 2010 HRTO 2533

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mildred Chamberlain

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, Income Maintenance Windsor Local Office, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Peter Steckenreiter and Gilliam Dunmore

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: December 23, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2533

Indexed as: Chamberlain v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

1This is an Application filed June 17, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2On September 27, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer in which it sought submissions with respect to the issue of deferral of this Application pending the conclusion of an appeal before the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”). In the SBT proceedings, the applicant alleges that the denial of benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program violates the Code.

3Submissions have been received from counsel acting for the province and Gillian Dunmore in support of deferral. No submissions have been received from any of the other parties and the timeline for providing submissions has elapsed.

4Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run at the same time, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The human rights issues raised in this Application are the same as those which are currently before the SBT, which has the jurisdiction to hear them and will do so, see Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), 2006 SCC 14. Accordingly, it appears that deferral pending the conclusion of the SBT proceeding is appropriate. The Applications will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the SBT proceeding.

5The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which an application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the other process.

6I am not seized of this matter.