Judith Butcher v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by The Minister of Health and Long Term Care, 2011 HRTO 1335

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Judith Butcher

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by The Minister of Health and Long Term Care

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: July 18, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1335

Indexed as: Butcher v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

Judith Butcher, Applicant ) Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario ) as represented by The Minister of Health ) and Long Term Respondent ) Matthew Horner, Counsel

BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed February 2, 2011, pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. This interim decision deals with a Request to Defer by the Respondent by which the Application would be deferred pending the outcome of an appeal before the Ontario Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB).

2By email correspondence with the Tribunal dated June 27, 2011, the applicant consented to deferral of her Application.

DECISION

3Deferral 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.

4While 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 as follows: 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. (Christianson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2009 HRTO 438, 2009 HRTO 438 at para. 10, Groves v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 1779.

5On reviewing the Application and the applicant’s submissions to the HSARB,I agree that a number of the key issues raised are identical, particularly whether the applicant is entitled to coverage pursuant to the Ontario Health Insurance Act for the out-of-province treatment she seeks.

ORDER

6On consent of both parties, I order consideration of the Application deferred pending the conclusion of the HSARB appeal process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which a party may request, in accordance with Rule 19, the Tribunal to proceed with an application after the conclusion of another process.

7I am not seized of this matter.