HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Shalini Vasdani
Applicant
-and-
Rajit Pal and Raman Anand
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Shalini Vasdani
Applicant
-and-
Rajit Pal
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Vasdani v. Pal
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Shalini Vasdani, Applicant ) Self-represented
Rajit Pal, Respondent ) Self-represented
Raman Anand, Respondent ) Self-represented
1These Applications involve the same applicant and personal respondent Pal, who is identified in both Applications.
2The applicant filed Application 2011-10271-I (“first Application”) on November 15, 2011 under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of creed. The applicant alleges that her landlord, respondent Pal, and his real estate agent, respondent Anand, discriminated against her by scheduling a showing of the rental unit where the applicant resides on her religious holy day contrary to expressed instructions.
3The respondents deny the allegations and request that the Tribunal defer the first Application because issues pertaining to the lease agreement between the applicant and the respondent landlord are currently before the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”).
4The applicant filed Application 2011-10439-I (“second Application”) on December 6, 2011 alleging that the respondent landlord discriminated against her in terms of the contract to purchase the rental unit due to her marital status and perceived mental disability. The applicant alleges that, notwithstanding an agreement giving her the right of first refusal, the respondent will not allow her to purchase the rental unit. The applicant alleges that the respondent landlord has made discriminatory and harassing comments about her marital status and perceived mental disability directly to her and about her to other people, as well as taken various steps to harass her, for example, invading her privacy, being aggressive, attempting to enter her unit and sending unreasonable notices.
5The respondent denies the allegations and requests that the Tribunal defer the second Application because the applicant filed an application with the LTB making the same allegations of harassment. The respondent landlord further notes that it also has an LTB application pertaining to issues between the parties.
6By way of a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated February 14, 2012, the Tribunal required the parties to provide clarification regarding the LTB matters and submissions with respect to potential deferral of the Applications pending the completion of the LTB matters. The Tribunal also required the parties to indicate their respective positions with respect to consolidation.
7The parties filed submissions which have been fully considered by the Tribunal.
Consolidation
8Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that, in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear applications together. In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25, the Tribunal set out the factors that should be considered in deciding whether to consolidate or hear proceedings together:
(a) The public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, including considerations of expense, delay, the convenience of the witnesses, reducing the need for the repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results;
(b) The potential prejudice to the respondents that could result from a single hearing, including the lengthening of the hearing for each respondent as issues unique to the other respondent are dealt with, and the potential for confusion that may result from the introduction of evidence that may not relate to the allegations specifically involving one respondent or the other; and
(c) Whether there are common issues of fact or law.
9The respondents agree to consolidation; however, the applicant objects. The applicant asserts that the first Application is less complex and deals with a different issue than the second Application, which is far more complicated. The applicant is concerned that there may be confusion in consolidating the Applications.
10In my view, the Applications should be consolidated and processed together. While the applicant alleges that there is a risk of confusion because the first Application deals with a less complex occurrence, I find that consolidation may assist in streamlining the cases. There is no doubt that the applicant impugns respondent Pal as a perpetrator in in both Applications and that that the applicant believes respondent Pal’s actions are at the heart of the overarching acrimony between all parties, much of which has been detailed and alleged in the second Application.
11I find that the circumstances of these Applications present a compelling public interest to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, as well as considerations of expense, convenience and the risk of inconsistent results. Furthermore, there was no evidence that consolidating the Applications together would result in any significant prejudice to any party. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications be consolidated.
Deferral
12As noted in the CAD, there are two outstanding LTB matters, specifically LTB applications CEL 18522-11 and CET 12524-11, involving the applicant and personal respondent Pal. The parties confirmed that these LTB applications remain outstanding and that the LTB recently commenced a hearing into CET 12524-11. I understand that there is a third LTB application in which the respondent landlord has sought to end the applicant’s tenancy.
13Pursuant to Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”), 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. In each case, the Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. 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.
14Based on the materials filed and the parties’ submissions, I find that there is overlap between the subject matter of the Applications and the proceedings currently before the LTB. In pursuing or responding to the LTB applications, the applicant raises similar concerns that she is being mistreated by the respondent landlord. The applicant’s narrative in the second Application and the LTB application CET 12524-11 are virtually identical. In both the LTB proceedings and these Applications, the applicant has alleged harassment and has specifically asserted that her human rights are being violated.
15There are a number of compelling reasons why an application should be deferred when parties are engaged in other legal proceedings that raise related issues. As noted various other Tribunal decisions, it may be unfair for parties to be required to simultaneously present their cases in multiple fora particularly when the matters overlap; when the same facts or issues are in dispute there is a potential for inconsistent findings; and it is generally preferable for one proceeding to be completed before the other starts.
16In light of the overlap between the Applications and the LTB matters, and given that the LTB has already commenced a hearing, it is appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the LTB applications CEL 18522-11 and CET 12524-11. To continue with the Tribunal Applications when there are concurrent legal processes that are hearing evidence and determining related legal issues regarding some of the same disputed facts risks inconsistent findings of fact and law.
17As previously noted, I understand that there is a third LTB application CEL-20186-12 involving the respondent landlord’s application for eviction. Given that the CAD did not require submissions on that matter, I will not determine whether the Applications should be deferred pending the conclusion of LTB application CEL-20186-12.
ORDER
18The Tribunal directs the applicant’s two Applications will be deferred pending the completion of LTB applications CEL 18522-11 and CET 12524-11.
19The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure by which a party may request that an application be reactivated after deferral.
20I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of February 2012.
”signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair