Wainwright v. Effort Trust Company, 2014 HRTO 1266

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Shawn Wainwright

Applicant

-and-

Effort Trust Company and Roger Adams

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: August 27, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1266
Indexed as: Wainwright v. Effort Trust Company

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Effort Trust Company and Roger Adams, Respondents

Tim Kelly, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why consideration of the present Application, which alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of sex, sexual orientation, family status and also alleges reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), is being deferred.

2The applicant lived in an apartment owned by the corporate respondent. The personal respondent is the superintendent of the building in which the applicant lived. The applicant alleges that while living there he was harassed and discriminated against by the personal respondent and that this was tolerated by the corporate respondent. The respondents have not yet been directed to file a Response.

3Before the applicant started this Application, he and his mother initiated a civil action against the corporate respondent. The Statement of Claim does not expressly allege violations of the Code, but there is a substantial overlap between the facts alleged in both proceedings and the issues that these allegations raise.

4By letter dated July 11, 2014, the Tribunal requested the parties to provide submissions on whether consideration of the Application should be deferred until the civil action has been resolved. The applicant has made no submissions and the time for doing so has now passed. The respondents’ submission consists of a single line which requests deferral because doing so “would avoid a duplication for the same allegations and Claims against the respondents”.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve allegations of discrimination brought before it.

6In this case there is a substantial overlap of facts and issues between the civil action and the ones raised in this Application. While – as I indicate above – Code violations have not been expressly pleaded in the Statement of Claim, the court has the authority to address any allegations of discrimination in the event that the applicant raises them in the civil action.

7This overlap of facts and issues is reason to exercise discretion in favour of deferral because doing so will avoid the risk of inconsistent determinations on the same facts and issues. The fact that the civil action is more advanced than this Application is a further reason to defer the Application.

order

8The Application is deferred pending resolution of the civil action.

9The parties’ attention is directed to Tribunal Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure by which a party may seek to bring the Application back on after the conclusion of the other proceedings.