Tsoref v. Frastell Property Management Inc., 2013 HRTO 697

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daliah Tsoref Applicant

• and -

Frastell Property Management Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: April 25, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 697 Indexed as: Tsoref v. Frastell Property Management Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Daliah Tsoref, Applicant ) Self-represented Frastell Property Management Inc, ) Martin Zarnett, Counsel Respondent )

1The applicant filed an Application on May 19, 2011, 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 housing on the basis of family status. She and her husband also filed an Application to the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) for an order that the respondent, among other things, harassed them and substantially interfered with their enjoyment of their rental unit.

2On September 9, 2011, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 1673, deferring the Application pending the completion of the LTB hearing. On December 19, 2011, the Tribunal issued another Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 2270, extending the deferral of Application until the conclusion of the LTB process.

3On February 27, 2013, the applicant filed a request to reactivate the Application on the basis that a final order was issued by LTB after a de novo hearing. The applicant’s request notes that the respondent has appealed both the intial and final LTB orders to the Divisional Court. The applicant indicates that, as a result of the appeal, the final order is stayed. The applicant submits that she believes the appeal process will not interfere with a parallel assessment by the Tribunal.

4The respondent opposes the request for reactivation and asks the Tribunal to extend the deferral pending finalization of the appeal by the Divisional Court. The respondent submits that, as a result of the appeal, the LTB matter continues and is not concluded.

DECISION

5The 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 with respect to facts that parallel the Application: see Aganeh Estate v. Mental Health Care Penetanguishene, 2011 HRTO 2280.

6I disagree with the applicant’s submission that deferral is no longer necessary simply because the appeal relates to questions of law. I do not accept that the appeal will have no impact on the Tribunal’s considerations of the Application.

7Deferral does not require that the other proceeding deal with precisely the same legal issues as raised in the human rights application. See for example, Christianson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2009 HRTO 438; Deli v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 330 and Ogbonna-Ehirim v. Holiday Inn & Suites Mississauga, 2011 HRTO 1750.

8Tribunal decisions have deferred applications on the basis of appeals to the Divisional Court. See for example, Taucar v. University of Western Ontario, 2011 HRTO 550; Sawhney v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2011 HRTO 926 and Volnyansky v. Peel (Regional Municipality), 2011 HRTO 833.

9It appears that, given the appeal to the Divisional Court, the LTB issues have not been completely resolved and/or finally determined. For the reasons set out in the previous Interim Decisions, I find that that this second request for reactivation must also be denied and that it is appropriate to extend the deferral of this matter until the conclusion of the appeal and any further related LTB procedures. Accordingly, the Application will remain deferred.

10I am not seized of this matter.