Atas v. Sutton Group Realty Systems, 2014 HRTO 1569

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nadire Atas Applicant

-and-

Sutton Group Realty Systems and Trevor Schultz Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Nadire Atas Applicant

-and-

MCS Consultants and Devonsleigh Paralegal Services Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: October 23, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1569 Indexed as: Atas v. Sutton Group Realty Systems

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sutton Group Realty Systems and Trevor Schultz, Respondents

David Conway, Counsel

1The applicant has brought two Applications. The Application in 2014-16985-I alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and record of offences contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Reprisal is also alleged. The Application in 2014-16986-I alleges discrimination in the provision of services because of disability.

2There is a pending Superior Court of Justice civil action that names the respondents in both Applications, along with other individuals, as defendants.

3In Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1363 I determined that the Applications should not be dismissed pursuant to s.34(11) of the Code because the statement of claim in the civil action does not appear to allege discrimination or seek a corresponding remedy.

4However, because there appeared to be a substantial overlap of facts and issues between the two Applications on the one hand, and the facts pled in the civil action on the other, I requested submissions from the parties on whether the Applications should be deferred until the civil action is resolved and on whether the two Applications should be consolidated.

5The only parties to provide submissions are the respondents Sutton Realty Group and Trevor Schultz. Their submissions argue for deferral. In doing so they also refer to the pleadings in two pending Small Claims Court actions that the applicant has brought. As no party has provided the Tribunal with a copy of the pleadings in those actions, it is not possible to determine their relevance to the issue of deferral. The submissions also argue for dismissal of the Application in 2014-16985-I on a number of grounds, including delay.

6I conclude that it is appropriate to defer both Applications until the Superior Court of Justice civil action is resolved. No party has argued against deferral. There is an overlap between the facts alleged in the two Applications and the civil action and the issues that these allegations raise.

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.

8The question of whether the Applications should be consolidated and whether the Applications should be dismissed, in whole or in part, for delay can be determined – if necessary – once the Applications have been reactivated.

order

9The Applications in 2014-16985-I and 2014-16986-I are deferred pending resolution of the civil action.

10The parties’ attention is directed to Tribunal Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure by which a party may seek to bring either Application back on after the conclusion of the other proceedings.