Alex Gilmor v. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, 2012 HRTO 561

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Alex Gilmor Applicant

-and-

Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: March 19, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 561 Indexed as: Gilmor v. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority

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 goods and services on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and reprisal.

2The respondent filed a Response on February 6, 2012, in which it asks that the Tribunal defer further consideration of the Application pending the resolution of a related proceeding. The applicant filed a Reply to the Response but it is not clear if the applicant agrees or disagrees that the Application should be deferred.

3The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of another related proceeding.

Background

4The applicant owns property on land over which the respondent has jurisdiction. The respondent determined that the applicant could not build on the property in the way the applicant wished. The applicant has filed an appeal with the Minister of Natural Resources. The respondents advise that the Minister will refer the appeal to the Mining and Lands Commissioner. Correspondence from the applicant’s counsel in respect of that dispute suggests that the applicant may also commence a judicial review of the respondent’s decision but it is not clear if this has been commenced.

Decision

5Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative, defer consideration of an application after providing notice of its intention to do so to all parties and giving them an opportunity to make submissions.

6Deferral 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. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

7Some 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.

8In this case, an appeal has been filed with the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the decision about whether the applicant is entitled to build on his property. This is also the central issue in the Application before this Tribunal which alleges that the respondent’s decision was influenced by discrimination on the basis of ancestry, place of origin and citizenship and also alleges reprisal. The appeal process was commenced before the Application was filed. It is a process that is designed to determine the underlying dispute about whether the applicant is permitted to build on the property.

9In my view, in these circumstances it appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the appeal that has been filed with the Minister of Natural Resources and any other legal proceeding related to that appeal.

10Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure outline the process by which an Application may be brought back on after it has been deferred.

Order

11The Application is deferred.

12I am not seized.