Christine Longtin v. McArthur Family Medical Centre and Dino Smiljic, 2010 HRTO 961

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christine Longtin Applicant

-and-

McArthur Family Medical Centre and Dino Smiljic Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: April 30, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 961 Indexed as: Longtin v. McArthur Family Medical Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Christine Longtin, Applicant ) On her own behalf

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to request further written submissions from the parties with respect to the issues of jurisdiction and deferral.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on September 30, 2009, which alleged that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to employment, housing and services because of her disability, family status, marital status, and association with a person identified by a Code ground, and subjected her to reprisal.

3In section 7 of the Application, the applicant stated that the date of the last event was September 22, 2009, but other parts of her Application appear to allege that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred in 2007. She also stated that she only discovered the discrimination after she received a copy of her medical file from the respondents in June 2009.

4In section 14 of the Application, the applicant acknowledged that the facts of the Application are part of another proceeding that is still in progress (a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario), but did not request that the Tribunal defer the Application until the proceeding before the College is completed because, to her knowledge, the College does not deal with human rights issues.

5On December 4, 2009, the respondents filed Responses, which denied the allegations of discrimination and reprisal. The Responses did not raise any jurisdictional issues or request that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of the proceeding before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

6On February 19, 2010, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, which informed the applicant that the Application appears to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination, and it failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions to explain why the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A copy of the Notice was sent to the respondents, who were informed that they did not need to file written submissions unless the Tribunal directed them to do so.

7The applicant filed written submissions on March 5, 2010, which did not address the jurisdiction issues raised in the Tribunal’s Notice. In my view, the next appropriate step is to request that the respondents file written submissions that address both the jurisdiction and deferral issues, and to give the applicant the opportunity to file further written submissions in reply.

8Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides 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.

9In Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-19:

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.

10The Tribunal makes the following Order:

(a) The respondents are directed to deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal by May 14, 2010, written submissions, including documents and case law, if any, which address the jurisdiction and deferral issues.

(b) The applicant is directed to deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal by May 21, 2010, written submissions, including documents and case law, if any, in reply.

11I am not seized of this matter.