HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ann Bruce

Applicant

-and-

The Law Society of Upper Canada and Ismet Zeynep Onen

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: August 2, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1322

Indexed as: Bruce v. The Law Society of Upper Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ann Bruce, Applicant ) Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the applicant’s deferred Application should be reactivated.

BACKGROUND

2On September 8, 2011, the applicant filed an Application with this Tribunal under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

3On January 11, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer to the applicant and the respondents, which informed them that pursuant to Rule 14 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal determined that it may be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application.

4Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that 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 Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-19:

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.

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.

been taken to pursue them.

5On February 10, 2012, the respondents filed written submissions, which requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application until after the conduct proceeding against the applicant before the Law Society of Upper Canada (the “LSUC”) has finally been determined, including the exhaustion of any appeals. On March 19, 2012, the applicant filed written submissions, which stated that she believes that deferral of her Application until after the conduct proceeding is concluded is a fair way of proceeding.

6On March 29, 2012, the Tribunal issued a letter to the parties, which deferred the Application pending the completion of the disciplinary proceeding before the LSUC. The letter also directed the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the completion of the other proceeding.

7On May 16, 2013, in response to a request by the LSUC’s Hearing Coordinator for availability dates for a penalty hearing, the applicant sent the LSUC and the Tribunal an email, which stated that she has cancer and cannot deal with the proceeding before the LSUC at this time.

8On June 24, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, which requested that the Tribunal reactivate her deferred Application because the proceeding against her before the LSUC has been ongoing since 2010, and she wishes to proceed with her Application before the Tribunal. The respondents did not file a Response to the Request, and the time for doing so has now passed.

ANALYSIS

9Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules provide:

14.3 Where a party wishes the Tribunal to proceed with an Application which has been deferred the request must be made in accordance with Rule 19.

14.4 Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

10In my view, the applicant’s Request to reactivate her Application should be denied because the disciplinary proceeding before the LSUC is not complete. As an aside, I would also note that it does not make sense that the applicant wishes to proceed with her Application before this Tribunal when she is apparently too ill to deal with the proceeding before the LSUC.

ORDER

11The applicant’s Request to reactivate her deferred Application is denied without prejudice to her right to file a further Request after the completion of the disciplinary proceeding before the LSUC.

12I am not seized of this matter.