Prezio v. Calvert, 2011 HRTO 1265

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Prezio

Applicant

-and-

Richard Calvert

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Charlene Weller

Applicant

-and-

Richard Calvert

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: June 30, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1265

Indexed as: Prezio v. Calvert

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

Richard Calvert, Respondent ) Peter F. Haber, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The applicants each filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethic origin, and reprisal with respect to accommodation. Both Applications raise the same issues based on the same factual allegations. The preliminary issue regarding deferral of the applications is therefore being considered jointly.

2On May 16, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer (NOID) on the basis of an ongoing matter before the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario (LTBO).

3The respondent filed submissions in response to the NOID on June 13, 2011. No submissions were received from either of the applicants.

4In support of deferral the respondent landlord notes that the applicants brought an application to the LTBO on March 7, 2011, a copy of which was included with the Applications. The respondent further notes that the LTBO is scheduled to hear the application on July 27, 2011.

DECISION

5Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The Tribunal has deferred past Applications when an LTBO matter is also ongoing, see Cailloz v. Buyer Broker Realty, 2010 HRTO 2113.

6While deferral is not automatic, it is granted to avoid adjudicative duplication. The Tribunal has held that some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application 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, see Christianson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2009 HRTO 438 at para. 10, Groves v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 1779.

7The Supreme Court of Canada has found that statutory tribunals, like the LTBO, that are empowered to decide questions of law are presumed to have the power to look beyond their enabling statutes in order to apply the Code to a matter properly in front of them, see Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), 2006 SCC 14, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513.

8Based on the materials filed, I find that there is significant overlap between the subject matter of the Applications and the application filed with the LTBO. In both matters, the applicants raise concerns that the respondent discriminated against them based on, among other things, their ethnic origin in response to complaints the applicants made regarding there lodgings.

9The Tribunal finds it appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the LTBO process. There may be issues raised by the Application that go beyond those that will be litigated before the LTBO. However, given the considerable factual overlap between the two proceedings, the potential for the LTBO to determine some of the issues in this Application, and the advanced stage of that process, the rational and orderly litigation of the various issues between the applicants and their landlord favours deferral, see O’Brien v. Burlington (City), 2009 HRTO 1818.

ORDER

10In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the most fair, just and expeditious approach is to defer consideration of these Applications pending the conclusion of the LTBO process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Tribunal Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which a party may request, in accordance to Rule 19, the Tribunal to proceed with an application after the conclusion of another process.

11Should the Applications proceed, it is open to the parties to make a Request for Order During Proceedings (Tribunal Form 10) to consolidate the two Applications or ask for them to be heard together pursuant to Rule 1.7 (d).

12I am not seized of this matter.