Ferron v. The Regional Municipality of Peel, 2013 HRTO 1544

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wayne Ferron

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Peel and The Governing Council of Salvation Army in Canada

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: September 13, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1544

Indexed as: Ferron v. The Regional Municipality of Peel

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Wayne Ferron, Applicant ) Self-represented

The Governing Council of Salvation Army ) Blair McCreadie, Counsel in Canada, Respondent )

The Regional Municipality of Peel, ) John Gescher, Counsel Respondent )

1The applicant filed this Application on September 20, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal with respect to services, goods and facilities.

2The applicant alleges that he was denied services at the respondents’ emergency shelter as retaliation for having claimed his human rights in on-going civil action against the respondents regarding earlier events.

3The respondents filed their respective Responses denying the allegations. The respondents request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application, pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code, on the basis that the civil action seeks remedies that overlap with this Application. Alternatively, the respondents request that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of the civil action. The respondents also note that there are other legal proceedings underway involving co-defendants which may have some bearing on this Application and that those matters may be concluded in the upcoming months.

4The applicant filed reply submissions opposing the respondents’ request to dismiss. The applicant submits that the civil action pertains to different events and is distinct from this reprisal Application.

DECISION

5I find that it is appropriate to defer the Application pending completion of the applicant’s civil action.

6Based on the parties’ documentation, it appears that there are various outstanding civil matters and there appears to be some intention on the part of the applicant to amend his civil claim to include the events alleged in this Application. As such, the Tribunal will not deal with the respondents’ request to dismiss at this time. The respondents may renew their request at a later juncture and provide up to date information about the nature, status and disposition of the various legal proceedings.

7The Tribunal will generally defer an application where the parties are engaged in other legal proceedings raising similar facts and issues, particularly where the other decision-maker has the authority to make determinations and provide remedies with respect to facts that parallel the Application: see Aganeh Estate v. Mental Health Care Penetanguishene, 2011 HRTO 2280.

8Some factors that have been identified as 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 types 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.

9I note that the Tribunal has deferred applications where there are on-going civil actions related to the Application: see, for example, Klein v. 2225191 Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1420; Swinton v. Wal-Mart Store # 3654, 2012 HRTO 1250 and Hanna v. A and 2M Drugs Limited, 2012 HRTO 576. Deferral under section 45 of the Code does not require that the other proceedings must potentially dispose of all of the issues in the Application: see Bradshaw v. Complex Services, 2010 HRTO 1215 and Chowdhury v. Burger King Restaurants of Canada, 2011 HRTO 674.

10The applicant’s civil action appears to be active. It appears that the applicant has indicated an intention to amend the civil action to include the events alleged in this Application, which gives rise to a risk of duplication. Further, based on the information provided by the respondents, there appears to be multiple legal matters currently underway, including requests by co-defendants which may impact the processing of this Application. Lastly, while the applicant’s civil action was commenced regarding earlier events, there is no doubt those events are the backdrop to this Application and raise some similar concerns as alleged in this Application. The inter-related nature of the two proceedings strongly favours deferral.

11Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that the Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the applicant’s civil action.

ORDER

12The Application is deferred. Where 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).

13I am not seized.