Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Robbin MacQueen
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Attorney General and Lambton County Detachment, Ontario Provincial Police
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume
Indexed as: MacQueen v. Ontario (Attorney General)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Robbin MacQueen, Applicant
Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Attorney General and Lambton County Detachment, Ontario Provincial Police, Respondents
Nadia Laeeque, Counsel
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 reprisal and discrimination with respect to services because of sex and marital status.
2This Interim Decision deals with the Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed by the respondents seeking to defer the Application pending the outcome of a related criminal proceeding.
3The applicant did not file submissions in response to the RFOP.
4The 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.
5The Tribunal will generally defer an application where the parties are involved in another proceeding based on the facts or issues raised in the application. While deferral is not automatic simply because the parties are engaged in another proceeding, deferral does not require that the other proceeding deal with precisely the same legal issues as raised in the human rights application. Some factors that have been identified as 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 types 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. See Mounfield v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital 2012 HRTO 1400 (“Mounfield”); Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.
6In the circumstances of this case, I find that deferral is appropriate. The respondent indicates that the applicant consents to the deferral and that the facts underlying both the criminal proceeding and the human rights application are the same. The applicant’s trial commenced in July, 2012 and the respondent expects that the same witnesses will be required to testify in both proceedings. If the two matters were to proceed concurrently, there is a real risk that the two proceedings could have inconsistent findings.
7Given that the legal issues in the criminal proceeding and the Application arise out of the same factual circumstances the Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the outcome of the criminal proceeding.
8The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the grievance and arbitration procedure. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca under “New Applications”. 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.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of October, 2012.
”signed by”
Leslie Reaume
Vice-chair