Young v. Arbor Memorial Gardens Canada, 2011 HRTO 425

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rina Young Applicant

-and-

Arbor Memorial Gardens Canada Ltd., Maureen Carey, Charles Duchesnay, Carol Kwong and Helder Cabral Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith Date: February 28, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 425 Indexed as: Young v. Arbor Memorial Gardens Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rina Young, Applicant ) Self-represented

Arbor Memorial Gardens Canada Ltd., ) Maureen Carey, Charles Duchesnay, Carol ) Katherine M. Pollock, Counsel Kwong and Helder Cabral, Respondents )

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed September 25, 2009, pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the respondents’ Request for Order During Proceeding seeking deferral of the Application pending completion of a related criminal proceeding wherein the personal respondent Helder Cabral is the accused and the applicant is the alleged victim.

2The applicant opposes deferral because she is concerned that awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceeding will significantly delay the Application being dealt with by the Tribunal.

3While deferral is not automatic, it is granted to avoid adjudicative duplication. Deferral 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 applications where there are ongoing criminal proceedings involving the parties, where the applicant or the respondent was the party who was criminally charged: Miller v. Bernard, 2010 HRTO 1488, Bernard v. London Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 1829 and Hadley v. J.A.C.S. Cartage, 2010 HRTO 516.

DECISION

4The personal respondent Helder Cabral is criminally charged with respect to events that are alleged by the applicant to have taken place on July 4, 2009, an incident which forms a substantial part of the Application.

5The latest update to the Tribunal indicates that the preliminary inquiry in the criminal matter is scheduled to take place on March 28, 2011. While the applicant may be frustrated with the length of time the criminal justice process may take, this is not a sufficient reason to proceed with the Application in all the circumstances: Law v. Organizational Solution, 2010 HRTO 1158.

6In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the most fair, just and expeditious approach is to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the personal respondent Helder Cabral. 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 to Rule 19, the Tribunal to proceed with an application after the conclusion of another process.

7I am not seized of this matter.