Lewis v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 871

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Julia Lewis Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: May 4, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 871 Indexed as: Lewis v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Julia Lewis, Applicant (Self-represented) Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, Respondent (Michelle M. Schrieder, Counsel)

Decision

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of a proceeding before the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”).

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 11, 2009, which alleged that the respondent discriminated against her with respect to housing and services because of her marital status and receipt of public assistance.

3Specifically, she alleged that the respondent discriminated against her when it denied her application for start-up benefits for housing.

4In section 14 of the Application, the applicant acknowledged that the facts of the Application are part of another proceeding that is still in progress, but did not clearly identify the proceeding, or request that the Tribunal defer consideration of her Application until the other proceeding is completed.

5The respondent filed a Response and a Request for Order During Proceedings on February 24, 2011, which denied the allegation of discrimination, and requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application because the applicant appealed the respondent’s decision to deny her start-up benefits for housing to the SBT.

6The respondent further stated that the SBT denied her appeal of the respondent’s decision to deny her start-up benefits, but is currently considering her specific claim that the respondent discriminated against her. The respondent attached a Decision of the SBT dated October 30, 2009, which informed the applicant that she could request a Stage 2 Human Rights hearing to deal with her allegation of discrimination.

7The applicant filed a Reply on March 25, 2011, which acknowledged that the discrimination issue is before the SBT, but opposed the respondent’s request to defer her human rights Application on the basis that the SBT has taken too long to schedule a hearing.

8Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides 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. The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

9In Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-19:

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. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal 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.

10The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has confirmed that human rights tribunals are not the only decision-makers that can decide human rights claims: Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42. Where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising the same human rights issues before a decision-making body with the authority to make determinations about those issues, the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the other proceeding. In such a scenario, the Tribunal’s normal approach is to defer to the other proceeding: Tekes v. Markham (Town), 2009 HRTO 1665, at para. 7.

11Furthermore, with specific reference to the SBT, the SCC has ruled that where a tribunal is properly seized of a discrimination issue pursuant to a statutory appeal, it would be extremely rare that it would not be the most appropriate forum to hear the entirety of the dispute: Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), 2006 SCC 14, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513, at para. 50.

12In my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. There is an ongoing appeal before the SBT, and there is a clear overlap between the facts and issues raised in the appeal and those raised in this Application. Furthermore, the SBT has the authority to interpret and apply the Code to address the applicant’s allegations of discrimination.

13The applicant has not identified any particular circumstance which would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the appeal before the SBT and any related appeals or judicial reviews.

14I am not seized of this matter.