Blais v. Ontario (Natural Resources), 2010 HRTO 671

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michel Blais

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Natural Resources, Robert Johnston, William Daniher, Darrell Hay, Robert Gibbs, Kip Bradfield, Jacques Landry, Arnold Beebe, Ron Reffle, Janice Christian, Dave Harnish, Mike Binkley, Marc Breton, Tammy McKellar, Sheila Walsh,

Trevor Woods, and Serge Tenaglia

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: March 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 671

Indexed as: Blais v. Ontario (Natural Resources)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Michel Blais, Applicant ) Michael Bennett, Counsel

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario ) Paul Gonsalves, Counsel

as represented by the Ministry of Natural )

Resources et al., Respondents )

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the issue of whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice.

2The applicant, who self identifies as Métis, filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 29, 2008, which alleges that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to employment and contracts. His Application lists a number of incidents between 1983 and 2008, including most recently, an incident in October 2007 when conservation officers allegedly stopped, handcuffed and searched him, and an incident in March 2008 when conservation officers allegedly seized his logs.

3The respondents filed a Response to the Application on June 3, 2009, which denies the allegations of discrimination. In its Response and a Request for an Order During Proceedings that it filed on February 4, 2010, the respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on a preliminary basis for various reasons, or alternatively, defer the Application because the respondent Ministry is currently prosecuting the applicant in the Ontario Court of Justice for charges related to the incidents in October 2007 and March 2008.

4The applicant filed a Response to a Request for an Order on February 17, 2010 and a Reply to the Response to the Application on February 23, 2010, which consent to the deferral of the Application until the sooner of a mediation or the matters before the Ontario Court of Justice and any related appeals have been determined.

5Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

6In Bhagdasserians v. 674460 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-20:

Deferral 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. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

Some 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 my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. The duplication of evidence in two concurrent proceedings, the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact and law, and the fact that the human rights Application appears to have been filed after the respondent Ministry’s decision to charge and prosecute the applicant, all weigh in favour of deferral.

8Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, and any related appeals.

9Where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

10I am not seized of this matter.