HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Narine Loojune
Applicant
-and-
1960 Keel Investments Inc., Ira Marder, Shirley Marder, Michael Sosnowicz, Shlomo Marder, Jane Doe, David Dunn, Merle Stein, David Rubin, Michael Harari, Iggy Florez, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Yochonan Buksbaum, P.C. Kim, P.C. Chakal, P.C. Dhaliwa, Toronto Police Services Board, Christine Zabielski, Gerry McNeilly, Marbrook Developments Limited, D&D Associates Paralegal, Atlas Alarm Inc. Office of the Independent Police Review Director
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Loojune v. 1960 Keel Investments Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Narine Loojune, Applicant
Self-represented
1960 Keel Investments Inc., Ira Marder, Shirley Marder, Michael Sosnowicz, Shlomo Marder, David Dunn, Merle Stein, David Rubin, Michael Harari, Iggy Florez, Marbrook Developments Limited, and D&D Associates Paralegal Respondents
David Rubin, Representative
1The applicant has filed an Application against the respondents. The respondents have not yet been directed to file a Response.
2On August 13, 2014, the Tribunal sent out a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application on the basis that there appears to be an ongoing proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (the “LTB”)
3The applicant opposes the deferral of the Application because the LTB is not addressing any human rights issues.
4Some of the respondents, which are named above, have filed submissions in support of the deferral of the Application, and note that a hearing is currently scheduled on October 31, 2014 at the LTB.
DECISION
5Section 45 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the 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. The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
6In Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-19:
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. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.
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.
7Having considered the matter I find that it is appropriate to defer the Application. Though there are a number of respondents named who are not participating at the LTB hearing, I find that a significant portion of the allegations in the Application relate to the applicant’s interactions with the landlord and its agents. In these circumstances, and in light of the fact that the hearing at the LTB is less than a month from now, it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the proceedings at the LTB.
8The Tribunal reminds the parties that pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the, where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of October, 2014.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair