Woods v. Kingston Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation, 2013 HRTO 1720

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nicole Woods

Applicant

-and-

Kingston Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation (operating as Town Homes Kingston)

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Ryan Armstrong

Applicant

-and-

Kingston Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation (operating as Town Homes Kingston)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 10, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1720

Indexed as: Woods v. Kingston Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nicole Woods and Ryan Armstrong, ) John Done, Counsel Applicants )

Kingston Municipal Non-Profit Housing ) Corporation (operating as Town Homes ) Lulama Kotze, Counsel Kingston), Respondent )

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of the Applications pending the conclusion of a proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (the "LTB").

2On March 1, 2013, the applicants, who live together in a rental unit, filed nearly identical Applications under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), which alleged that the respondent, who is their landlord, discriminated against them with respect to housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance. Specifically, they alleged that the respondent took advantage of their disabilities and dependence on public assistance by coercing them into signing a repayment contract with respect to arrears without the involvement of their legal counsel.

3In sections 14 and 15 of the Applications, the applicants acknowledged that there have been proceedings before the LTB involving the same parties, but denied that the same facts have been, or are currently, before the LTB, and opposed the deferral of the Applications. The applicants included various orders of the LTB and related documents, including one which appeared to indicate that a further matter was scheduled to be heard before the LTB.

4On May 30, 2013, the respondent filed Responses, which denied the allegation of discrimination. Specifically, the respondent stated that it assisted Ms. Woods in entering into a repayment agreement because she wanted the arrears situation dealt with, and she felt harassed and condescended to by her counsel. The respondent stated that the Applications are an abuse of process because the applicants' counsel filed them as a personal vendetta against the respondent.

5In section 8 of the Responses, the respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Applications on the basis that the facts of the Applications are part of an ongoing proceeding before the LTB. However, the respondent did not provide any details explaining, or include any supporting documents showing, how the facts of the Applications are part of an ongoing proceeding before the LTB.

6The applicants did not file Replies, and the time for doing has now passed.

7Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. 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. The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

8In 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.

9In my view, deferral is not the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Applications. Although there have been proceedings before the LTB involving the same parties, and it appears that there is an ongoing proceeding, I have not seen anything in the materials before me which demonstrates that the LTB is dealing with the same facts and issues before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall not defer consideration of the Applications pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the LTB.

10All the parties have agreed to mediation. The Tribunal's Registrar will therefore schedule a joint mediation. If there is no settlement, the parties are directed to file written submissions within one week of the date of the mediation, which addresses whether the Tribunal should consolidate and hear the Applications together. See Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal's Rules and Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25.

11I am not seized of this matter.