HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Yvonne Singh
Applicant
-and-
Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc., Beverly Pihl, Marc Gervais, Deanna (Clarke) Gervais and Kathy Dunnett
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: January 21, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 100 Indexed as: Singh v. Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc., Beverly Pihl, Marc Gervais, Deanna (Clarke) Gervais and Kathy Dunnett, Respondents
Paula Boutis, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed on August 31, 2012 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of ethnic origin and the receipt of public assistance. The Application alleges that the applicant has been harassed by fellow members of the Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc. (the Co-operative) and that her complaints about this conduct to the Co-operative's Board of Directors have effectively been ignored.
2This Interim Decision addresses the respondents' request that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of a proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice scheduled to begin on January 8, 2013. The Co-operative has initiated this proceeding in order to terminate the applicant's membership and occupancy rights at the Co-operative and to obtain a writ of possession pursuant to the Co-operative Corporations Act (CCA). It is clear from the materials before me that the Co-operative is intending to rely on many of the same incidents of alleged harassment referred to by the applicant in her Application to argue before the Superior Court of Justice that the applicant's interactions with her fellow Co-operative members warrant the termination of her membership and occupancy rights in the Co-operative.
3The respondents' request to defer the Application is contained in their Response to the Application. The respondents state that a deferral is warranted because the Superior Court of Justice can consider and apply the Code when hearing an application for a writ of possession under the CCA and that the applicant can properly address her human rights concerns during the proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice.
4On December 14, 2012 the Tribunal delivered a copy of the respondents' Response and request to defer to the applicant and directed the applicant to provide submissions in response to the respondents' request to defer as part of her Reply to the Response. The applicant has filed a Reply but has not made submissions on the request to defer.
DECISION
5Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (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. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Some 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. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.
6I am of the view that the it is appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice. I am satisfied that this proceeding will consider many of the same facts and issues raised in the Application and may consider the applicant's Code related allegations. Deferral will ensure that there are not concurrent proceedings considering the same subject matter.
7Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).
8I am not seized of this matter
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of January, 2013.
"Signed by"_________________
Eric Whist
Vice-chair