Fayyaz Ahmed v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, 2014 HRTO 1814

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Fayyaz Ahmed

Applicant

-and-

Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: December 19, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1814 Indexed as: Ahmed v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Fayyaz Ahmed, Applicant Self-represented

Association of Professional engineers of Ontario, Respondent Leah Price, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant applied to the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”) for a license to practice professional engineering. As part of the process the applicant attended an interview with members of the Experience Requirements Committee. The members who interviewed the applicant determined that he did not demonstrate that he had the necessary experience required for a license. The applicant was advised of his options in light of this result. The applicant has not advised the PEO as to the steps he wishes to take to continue the licensing process.

3The applicant alleges that his disability was not accommodated during the interview.

4The respondent requests the deferral of this Application pending the completion of the licensing process.

Decision and Analysis

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application on such terms as it may determine (Rule 14.1 of the Rules of Procedure). Deferral of the application ensures that legal processes dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently. It is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings, but is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances of each case.

6Some 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 types 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.

7It is unclear as to whether the PEO licensing process is a proceeding within the meaning of section 45 of the Code. Assuming, without making a finding to that effect, that the licensing process is a proceeding contemplated by section 45, I find that it would not be appropriate to defer the application to that process.

8A key objective of deferral is to avoid concurrent and potentially conflicting decisions by the Tribunal and other adjudicative bodies on the same or overlapping issues.

9It is unlikely that there is a significant danger of conflicting decisions. The PEO has jurisdiction to grant a license to practice professional engineering in Ontario. This matter is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear and determine.

Order

10The respondent’s request for deferral is denied.

11As the respondent has not indicated its willingness to mediate in its Response, the Registrar is requested to schedule a one day merits hearing.