Lee-Ann Turner on behalf of Christopher Ansell v. Brant Park Co-Op, 2011 HRTO 2052

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lee-Ann Turner on behalf of Christopher Ansell

Applicant

-and-

Brant Park Co-Op, Lou Wood, Peter Appelman,

Martha Devlin, John Coleman and L. Milner

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: November 9, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2052

Indexed as: Turner v. Brant Park Co-Op

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, sex, family status, marital status and age.

2The respondents filed a Response on October 3, 2011, in which they ask that the Tribunal defer further consideration of the Application pending the resolution of an application before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that is related to the substance of the Application before this Tribunal. The applicant filed a Reply in which she opposes the deferral request.

Background

3The personal respondents are members of the Board of the Brant Park Cooperative Apartments. The applicant purchased shares in the Co-op in January 2010. According to the respondents, the applicant’s son and a roommate have been living in the unit and the applicant has not. The respondents say that the roommate has been paying rent to the applicant. The respondents say that this arrangement is contrary to the Co-op By-Laws and they have applied to Superior Court for an Order requiring the applicant to vacate the unit, or in the alternative, an Order to evict all non-family members.

4The applicant claims that the respondents, in seeking to enforce their interpretation of the Co-op By-Laws, have infringed the Code-protected rights of her and her son. She believes that the respondents would allow the residency arrangement if her son was in a relationship with the roommate and that this results in discrimination on the grounds of family status and marital status. She alleges discrimination on the grounds of race because during an interview, there was mention of the Taliban. The applicant self-identifies herself and her son as Caucasian, born in Canada. She also asserts that the application to the Superior Court was made in reprisal for her Application to this Tribunal.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

6However, the Tribunal is also concerned that concurrent proceedings could result in inconsistent findings on fact or law. While the substance of the Application before this Tribunal and the substance of the application before the Superior Court are not identical, they both arise out of and require an interpretation of the By-Laws of the Co-op. As this issue is now before the Court, it would not be appropriate for this Tribunal to consider the Application until the process before the Court is concluded.

7The Tribunal will defer further consideration of the Application until the proceeding before the Court is concluded.

8Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the Court proceeding has been concluded.

9I am not seized.