Fisher v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 1173

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mark Fisher

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: August 6, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1173

Indexed as: Fisher v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mark Fisher, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Social Services, Respondent

Cheryl Ellison, Representative

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether this Application should be deferred pending the resolution of a civil claim commenced by the applicant.

2By Application filed February 5, 2014, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him because of disability and reprised against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him when the Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) considered him and his roommate to be co-habiting in a marriage-like relationship.

3The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of a claim that the applicant filed in Small Claims Court on April 11, 2014. In his Application, the applicant stated that he had already provided the respondent with notice of his intent to file the claim. Although the applicant has framed his civil claim as a claim of negligence, incompetence and fraudulent intent, the claim relates to the same determination made by the Director of ODSP challenged in the Application. I note that the applicant also challenged the Director of the ODSP’s decision in an appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”). The SBT found it lacked the authority to deal with the matter since the Director had not reduced the amount of the applicant’s income support and there was no ongoing suspension of his income support.

4The applicant opposed the respondent’s deferral request.

Deferral of application

5Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. The Tribunal has the discretion to defer proceedings before it, and has applied this discretion where there are parallel legal proceedings between the parties.

6In my view, deferral is appropriate in this case due to the overlap in the factual background to the applicant’s claims in each proceeding. Although the applicant has sought to characterize his claims differently in his Application, the claims set out in his Application are also raised in his civil claim against the respondent. Due to this overlap, there is a significant potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings in the two proceedings.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding before the Small Claims Court and any related appeals.

8It should be noted that, where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

Order

9For the reasons set out above, this Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court proceeding in this matter and any related appeals.