Julie Daly v. Don Smith, 2012 HRTO 959

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julie Daly

Applicant

-and-

Don Smith

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Decision Date: May 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 959

Indexed as: Daly v. Smith

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 accommodation on the basis of sex, sexual solicitation and reprisal. This Interim decision addresses the applicant's request to defer.

2The Application was filed on January 20, 2012. In her application the Applicant indicated that the facts of her Application were part of a proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board and a claim made by the respondent against the applicant in small claims court. The applicant indicated that she wanted her Application deferred pending the outcome of these other proceedings.

3On April 4, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the parties indicating that the applicant had asked for the deferral of her Application pending the resolution of concurrent proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board and in the Superior Court and indicating that any affected persons could make submissions on whether consideration of the Application should or should not be deferred. No submissions have been received by the Tribunal.

DECISION

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. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

5Some 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 nature and status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

6I am of the view that a deferral is appropriate in this case given that the proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board and in the Superior Court will likely address facts and issues raised by the applicant in her Application.

7The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back before the Tribunal after resolution of the proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board and in the Superior Court.

8I am not seized of this matter