Ilze Berzins v. Ottawa Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 554

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ilze Berzins

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: March 15, 2010

Citation Number: 2010 HRTO 554

Indexed As: Berzins v. Ottawa Police Services Board

Reasons for Decision

1The Tribunal has scheduled a hearing for June 15, 2010 to deal with an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceedings filed by the respondent. The respondent asks the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing and defer the application because there is a related civil action and because there is a hearing underway at the Tribunal in a different Application that raises legal issues that may be relevant to the Application in this case. The applicant opposes the adjournment request.

2The respondents previously asked the Tribunal to dismiss the Application under section 34(11) of the Code, on the grounds that the applicant had filed a civil action in court arising out of the same circumstances that gave rise to the Application. That request was denied in Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 1192, dated August 4, 2009, on the grounds that the Statement of Claim in the civil action did not include any allegation of human rights discrimination or any request for a Code-related remedy.

3In the current Request for Order During Proceedings, the respondents state that subsequent to the Interim Decision, the applicant amended her Statement of Claim in the civil action “expanding upon her claims to include other matters including allegations of false arrest and what appears to be a defamation claim relating to communications between the Respondent’s officers and Ms. Berzin’s neighbours.” The respondents have not provided a copy of the amended Statement of Claim but the applicant has not disputed that she filed an amended Statement of Claim.

4The considerations that apply to a request to dismiss an Application under section 34(11) because the person has started a legal action in court are different than the considerations that apply to a request to defer consideration of an Application until another proceeding has been finished. If the matter is dismissed, it will never be dealt with. If it is deferred, it can still be considered once the other proceeding is concluded.

5Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

6Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

7In responding to the request to defer, the applicant says that there is no overlap between the issues that are relevant to the civil action and those that are relevant to the Application. The respondents submit that while the issues are not identical, there are factual events that are common to both the civil action and the Application. The respondents advise that the civil claim has already proceeded through multiple steps, including disclosure and a settlement conference.

8In this case, there is another proceeding which is relatively advanced. That other proceeding will involve a determination of factual issues or the settlement of issues that are relevant to the Application. Resolution of the other proceeding may resolve at least some of the issues that arise in the Application.

9In the circumstances of this case, I find that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application until the civil action has been resolved.

10The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the civil action.