Griffith v. Hurst, 2011 HRTO 1019

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gwynfred Griffith Applicant

• and-

David Hurst, Maggie Lalande and Joyce Phillips Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Neil Griffith by his next friend Gwynfred Griffith Applicant

-and-

David Hurst, Maggie Lalande and Joyce Phillips Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: May 30, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1019 Indexed as: Griffith v. Hurst

Introduction

1These are two related Applications filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Applications relate to a visit made by the applicants to a medical office.

2The respondents asked the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Applications pending the resolution of proceedings currently underway before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. In a Case Assessment Direction dated April 5, 2011, the Tribunal directed the respondents to provide to the Tribunal and the applicants all relevant documents related to the proceeding before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. These documents and submissions were provided by counsel for the respondent David Hurst on April 14, 2011. The applicants have not filed a reply and the time for doing so has passed.

3Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative, defer consideration of an application after providing notice of its intention to do so to all parties and giving them an opportunity to make submissions

4Deferral 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.

5Some 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.

6In this case, the respondent Dr. Hurst advises that the review before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board was set for May 24, 2011 and that a decision on the appeal would be expected within three to six months of the review.

7It appears that the factual circumstances that will be considered by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board are identical to the factual circumstances raised in the Application.

8In these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer further consideration of these Applications pending the resolution of the proceeding currently before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

9The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the Application has been deferred.

10I am not seized.