HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Elsie Peters
Applicant
-and-
Law Society of Upper Canada and Danielle Smith
Respondents
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Peters v. Law Society of Upper Canada
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Elsie Peters, Applicant
Self-represented
Law Society of Upper Canada and Danielle Smith, Respondents
Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel
1The applicant filed this Application on March 18, 2013, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin and sex.
2On April 25, 2013, the respondents filed their Response denying the allegations.
3By way of Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 1070, dated June 17, 2013, the Tribunal deferred this Application pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the Law Society and any related reviews or appeals.
4On November 26, 2013, the applicant filed a request to reactivate the Application on the basis that the Law Society hearing was completed on June 30, 2013. The applicant notes that no decision has been issued as of yet.
5On December 10, 2013, the respondents filed submissions opposing reactivation. The respondents submit that it is not appropriate to reactivate the Application because the Law Society hearing process is not completed.
DECISION
6This Tribunal found it was appropriate to defer this Application based, in part, on the following reasons:
The Law Society discipline proceedings were commenced long before this Application and the hearing process is well underway. It appears that the some of the facts raised in the Application overlap with some of the issues before the hearing panel.
Tribunal decisions have deferred applications where there were ongoing Law Society discipline proceedings: see for example, Sawhney v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2011 HRTO 926; Hamalengwa v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2012 HRTO 668; and Sugarman v. Farant, 2013 HRTO 488. The Tribunal in Akhtar v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 HRTO 1479, deferred the application pending the conclusion of a judicial review of a decision made by the Law Society regarding an accommodation complaint. In Dixon v. Isidoro Grossi Professional Corporation, 2010 HRTO 656, and Ormesher v. Schwarz Law LLP, 2013 HRTO 1035, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of a Law Society investigation.
In my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. I appreciate that the applicant has a valid interest in having her Application dealt with expeditiously, but in my view, this interest is outweighed by other factors, including the fact that the Law Society proceeding is at a more advanced stage than the Tribunal process, there is potential for duplication of evidence in two concurrent proceedings with respect to certain specific matters in dispute, and there is a possibility of inconsistent findings of fact. In light of the fact that the Law Society process was commenced first and remains outstanding, as well as the issue of overlapping allegations, I find it appropriate to defer this Application.
Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the Law Society and any related reviews or appeals.
7I find that there is no basis to reactivate the Application. The Interim Decision expressly stated that the Application was deferred pending the completion of the discipline proceeding and any “related reviews or appeals”. The parties’ submissions indicate that the Law Society process remains outstanding and that no decision has been released.
8The process before the Law Society will not be concluded until the decision regarding the disciplinary proceedings is rendered and all appeals or reviews are finally determined or that the time for bringing any appeal or review has passed. I agree with the respondent that there has been no material change of circumstances since the Interim Decision which ordered deferral. As such, this Application will remain deferred until the final determination in the discipline proceedings, including all appeals and reviews.
9The request for reactivation is denied.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of December, 2013.
“Signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair