Mahmoud Galal v. Ontario Disability Support Program, 2014 HRTO 1613

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mahmoud Galal

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Disability Support Program, Romanella Rissato, Susanna Ardito and Nadia Mustillo

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: October 31, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1613

Indexed as: Galal v. Ontario Disability Support Program

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mahmoud Galal, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal will not reactivate this deferred Application at this time. The Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of ethnic origin and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The applicant began receiving benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program ("ODSP") in 2010. He then worked for a period until he was laid off. The applicant was in receipt of Employment Insurance benefits but when he ceased to be eligible for those benefits he applied to have his ODSP benefits reinstated. He alleges that his caseworker's attempts to assess his eligibility for benefits and the manner in which she treats him, including stipulating how he is to communicate with her, are all discriminatory actions. He has filed four appeals to the Social Benefits Tribunal ("SBT") regarding the issues that are the substance of this Application.

3On September 15, 2014 the Tribunal informed the parties that the Application would be deferred until the SBT decided the outstanding appeals.

4The applicant objects to deferral and has made a request to have the Application reactivated. In his request for reactivation he states that one of the four appeals has been the subject of an SBT attempt at early resolution and that the outcome of this appeal is pending a response from ODSP. He states that the other three appeals have not been routed through an early resolution process and that the December 9, 2014 hearing date for these appeals has now been postponed. The SBT's September 19, 2014 letter informing him of the postponement states that a new date is in the process of being set.

5I am of the view that deferral of the Application should continue. While the applicant objects, there is a great deal of overlap of facts and issues between the SBT appeals and the Application. Deferral serves the purpose of avoiding the risk of conflicting determinations on the same facts and issues arising in the two proceedings. Moreover, the SBT appeals are more advanced in that process than the Application before the Tribunal. Although one hearing date has been postponed, the SBT is in the process of setting a new date and thus the appeals will likely be determined shortly. Overall it makes sense to await the SBT's decision on these appeals before processing this Application further.

order

6The request to reactivate the Application is denied. The Application remains deferred until the Social Benefits Tribunal decides the outstanding appeals. 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).