Farenga v. Wilson-Blanchard Property Management, 2012 HRTO 1882

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gino Farenga

Applicant

-and-

Wilson-Blanchard Property Management and Anthony DiAdamo

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: October 3, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1882 Indexed as: Farenga v. Wilson-Blanchard Property Management

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”). The applicant alleges discrimination in relation to housing on the basis of race and ethnic origin. This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of an action in the Superior Court of Justice (“small claims court action”) initiated by the applicant.

2On June 18, 2012, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the parties indicating that the Tribunal had determined that it might be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the small claims court action. The Tribunal directed the parties to deliver and file any written submissions which they wished to make in respect of the deferral issue within 30 days of the date of the Notice of Intent to Defer. The parties did not file submissions.

3The applicant was employed by the respondent. He was provided with housing as part of his compensation. The Application contains allegations which relate to the circumstances associated with the termination of the applicant’s employment and the events that occurred when the applicant was required to vacate the unit he was living in.

4Following his termination, the applicant was able to rent a unit in the same building. There is a separate incident set out in the Application which is alleged to have occurred on November 28, 2011 while he was a tenant. He alleges that a racial slur was made by the respondent DiAdamo, who was employed at the time with the organizational respondent.

5In the statement of claim the applicant is seeking compensation for the failure to renew his employment contract, his storage and moving expenses and other expenses totalling $25,000.00. The subject-matter of the application and the small claims action are the same with the exception of the one incident which is alleged to have occurred on November 28, 2011.

6The 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 seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

7The Application and the statement of claim overlap in relation to all but one issue. The applicant has made no submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Defer. In my view it is appropriate to defer this Application until the small claims court action is completed.

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”.

9I am not seized.