Rosemary Selah v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2012 HRTO 765

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rosemary Selah

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: April 16, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 765

Indexed as: Selah v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation

1This is an Application filed December 5, 2011, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of a Landlord and Tenant Board ("LTB") proceeding.

BACKGOUND

2The Application alleges discrimination in goods, services and facilities and housing on various grounds including disability, citizenship, marital status and receipt of public assistance. The applicant is a tenant in a unit operated by the respondent. Among other things, the applicant alleges that the respondent has failed to accommodate her disability by not providing her with a transfer to a different unit, which she requires because of multiple allergies to scent, chemical fumes and environmental sensitivities.

3The Application references another proceeding based on the same facts as the Application, an "LTB Form 2 Application", which was settled. The Application also indicates that there was a "Breach of a condition of the LTD Mediated Agreement" and references a related letter setting out the applicant's concerns. This same letter is referenced in answer to question 8 of the Application which provides the narrative for the Application. No request for deferral is made.

4A Response was filed on January 19, 2012, denying the allegations. In addition, on February 14, 2012, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking deferral of the Application pending the outcome of a re-opened hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board. The respondent states that the application (at the LTB) and subsequent mediated agreement raise issues alleged in the Application and that, as a result of a breach of the mediated agreement, the respondent has re-opened the application at the LTB.

5In a letter dated March 1, 2012, the respondent indicates that it has been advised that the applicant is also re-opening her application at the LTB.

6In a letter dated March 28, 2012, the Tribunal asked the parties to forward a copy of their respective applications pending at the LTB and an update on the status of the proceeding.

7In separate letters to the Tribunal filed April 4, 2012, the applicant and respondent have clarified the content and status of the applications at the LTB. The submissions reflect that the applications being heard on May 12, 2012, at the LTB include an amended application about tenant rights and a request to re-open an application of the applicant/tenant; and a request to re-open an application filed by the landlord/respondent. Among other things, the amended application being brought by the applicant is based on a claim that the applicant has been placed in a housing unit unsuitable for her health problems. As a remedy, the applicant seeks compensation including for her pain suffering and humiliation endured as a result of the respondent's actions and inactions similar to that sought in the Application.

8The respondent submits that the applicant's LTB and Tribunal Application are based on the same facts and issues; namely, breach of the mediated LTB agreement and the failure to accommodate the applicant's environmental sensitivities.

9The applicant has provided copies of the related documents including the Amended Application About Tenant Rights (Form T2) and a Notice of Re-Scheduled Hearing indicating that the Amended Application and the respondent's application at the LTB will be heard on May 10, 2012. The applicant has not taken a position on deferral in her recent submissions.

DECISION

10Deferral 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.

11Some 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.

12In this case, I find it appropriate to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the applicant's Amended Application about Tenant's Rights (Form T2) and Request to Re-Open an Application of the Applicant/Tenant (File Number TNT-20042-11). There is a clear overlap between the facts and issues raised in the aforementioned application and request and the Application at the Tribunal. Further, the LTB proceeding is scheduled to take place in less than a month.

13The Application is therefore deferred pending the conclusion of applicant's Amended Application about Tenant's Rights (Form T2) and Request to Re-Open an Application of the Applicant/Tenant (File Number TNT-20042-11).

14The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the other proceeding.