Madison Reece v. Xiaorui Sun, 2013 HRTO 555

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Madison Reece

Applicant

-and-

Xiaorui Sun

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: April 4, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 555

Indexed as: Reece v. Xiaorui Sun

APPEARANCES

Madison Reece, Applicant

Rachel Chetwyn, Next Friend

Xiaorui Sun, Respondent

Qizhi Jiao, Representative

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to accommodation because of disability, family status, age and reprisal.

2The respondent filed a Response denying the allegations of discrimination and seeks the deferral of the Application on the basis of an ongoing matter before the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”).

3The applicant filed a Reply and opposes deferral. The applicant submits that the proceeding before the LTB will deal only with landlord and tenant matters and only the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with human rights issues.

4It appears from the pleadings that the Landlord and Tenant matter is ongoing.

DECISION

5The 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 (Rule 14.1). Deferral ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

6The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is ongoing litigation based on the same facts and issues. However, the Tribunal must also 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. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

7Based on the materials filed, I find that there is significant overlap between the subject matter of the Application and the application filed with the LBT. In both matters, the applicant raises concerns that the respondent discriminated against her by issuing an eviction notice because of her asthma. The validity of the eviction notice shall be an issue in both proceedings and it appears that the LBT process is further advanced, as, based on the materials filed, the LBT has held hearings regarding the parties disputes. The materials filed do not indicate whether the LBT has rendered a decision.

8In light of the overlap between the two matters, and given that the LBT matter is at an advanced stage, it is appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the LBT matter.

9The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure by which a party may request that the Application proceed.

10I am not seized of this matter.