HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Richard Ulias
Applicant
-and-
2225191 Ontario Inc., Lauderdale Point Marina & Resort Inc., James Lewis, George Timpson, Albert Graves and Les Hartle
Respondents
INTERIM dECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Ulias v. 2225191 Ontario
1The applicant filed this Application with the Tribunal on March 25, 2011 alleging discrimination with respect to contracts on the basis of his association with a person identified by a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“Code”).
2On June 22, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction indicating that a summary hearing would be scheduled to determine whether this Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed. The respondents were notified that, while it was unnecessary to file a full Response at this stage, they were required to file a brief explanation of the events in question.
3The respondents filed a Response wherein they requested that this Application be deferred pending the outcome of the deferral of another Application. The respondents pointed out that the subject matter of this Application related to the allegations made in Application 2011-08402-I, and that Application 2011-08402-I was deferred pursuant to Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 1420 pending the conclusion of a Small Claims Court action.
4On September 1, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction noting 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 (Rule 14.1). 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. The Case Assessment Direction directed that, within 21 days, the applicant was required to file written submissions with respect to whether or not this Application should be deferred because this Application is related to the subject matter of Application 2011-08402-I, which was deferred pending the conclusion of a civil action.
5The applicant did not file written submissions and the timeline for doing so has elapsed.
6Having reviewed the parties’ materials and given the Tribunal’s Order in Application 2011-08402-I, I find that it is appropriate to defer the consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the deferral in Application 2011-08402-I.
DIRECTIONS
7Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that this Application be deferred pending the conclusion of the deferral in Application 2011-08402-I. Where 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).
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 19^th^ day of October, 2011.
”signed by”____________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair