Banwait v. Tranter, 2013 HRTO 920

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Navpreet Banwait Applicant

-and-

Mark Tranter Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: May 28, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 920 Indexed as: Banwait v. Tranter

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Navpreet Banwait, Applicant Stuart O’Connell, Counsel

Mark Tranter, Respondent Eugene Bhattacharya, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s request that further consideration of the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings before the court involving criminal charges against the respondent.

2Counsel for the respondent states that the criminal charges arise out of the same alleged facts as underlie the Application. There have been a number of appearances in court respecting the criminal charges and a preliminary hearings is set of July 12, 2013.

3The applicant opposes deferral. Counsel submits that the applicant has not shown that the criminal charges are in fact related to the same facts that gave rise to the Application. Counsel further submits that the respondent’s Charter rights can be preserved by the court if the applicant was required to testify in a hearing at the Tribunal.

ANALYSIS

4The 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 of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same facts and issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

5The Tribunal has generally deferred consideration of an application when there is an ongoing and related criminal matter before the court. This is to protect the defendant’s right to remain silent in the criminal proceeding and to ensure a logical and orderly litigation of the various issues between the parties to avoid inconsistent findings of fact between the two adjudicative bodies. See Philadelphia v. Serco Des, 2012 HRTO 241 and Duke v. Toronto (City), 2013 HRTO 413.

6The respondent’s counsel has stated that the criminal charges and the Application relate to the same factual allegations. I find no reason to doubt that this is so. It appears that the criminal proceedings are well underway and a preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 2013.

7In these circumstances, I find that deferral is appropriate.

DECISION

8The Tribunal will defer further consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the criminal proceeding against the respondent. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal after the criminal proceeding has concluded.