Manit8abe8ich v. Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry), 2014 HRTO 1284

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Denis Manit8abe8ich

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, and Derek Hebner

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: August 29, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1284

Indexed as: Manit8abe8ich v. Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Denis Manit8abe8ich, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, and Derek Hebner, Respondents

Sunny Zhai, Counsel

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 goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, gender identity and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination. This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s request to defer the Application pending the completion of a related proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice.

2The applicant identifies himself as a Sovan North American Indian and a member of the Kinounchepirini Algonquin First Nation. There is no dispute that the individual respondent, a Conservation Officer employed by the respondent Ministry, stopped the applicant on or about November 13, 2013. There also appears to be no dispute that the individual respondent checked the applicant’s hunting licences and confiscated the applicant’s traps because he did not have a licence for trapping. The applicant states that the individual respondent refused to accept that the applicant was entitled to engage in traditional trapping as a member of an Algonquin First Nation. The organizational respondent states that it followed its procedures for investigations of persons claiming aboriginal or treaty rights and concluded that the applicant did not have such rights to trap in the area in which the individual respondent stopped him. Consequently, an information to commence a Provincial Offences Act prosecution was sworn on July 29, 2014.

3The respondent requests deferral of this Application pending completion of proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice regarding the regulatory offence and charges against the applicant. The respondent submits that the Application concerns the applicant’s allegation that the respondents did not recognize his aboriginal rights. The respondents submit that the Court will determine whether the applicant holds such rights. The respondent submits that the Court is the most appropriate forum for the applicant to raise the issue of his aboriginal rights and that this Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the prosecution.

4The applicant opposes the request to defer. The applicant submits that he has been subject to discrimination regardless of the outcome of the Court proceeding and wishes to proceed before the Tribunal.

Analysis

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 of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the same parties are involved in other legal proceedings, see Haskins v. TNS Canadian Facts, 2008 HRTO 287. Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are: the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them: see Calabria v. DTZ Barnicke, 2008 HRTO 411, and Kaj v. Orsini Bros. Inns, 2009 HRTO 170.

6The Court proceeding and this Application are based on the same facts and the applicant’s aboriginal rights are in issue in both proceedings. Consequently, there is significant overlap in the factual and legal issues raised in the proceedings before the Court and the Tribunal, which raises the potential for inconsistent findings if the matters proceed concurrently. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the other proceedings initiated by the applicant.

7The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.

8I am not seized.