Mira Freidin v. Newmarket ODSP, 2014 HRTO 307

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mira Freidin

Applicant

-and-

Newmarket ODSP

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: March 7, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 307

Indexed as: Freidin v. Newmarket ODSP

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mira Freidin, Applicant

Self-represented

1The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer (“NOID”) this Application dated December 19, 2014 advising the applicant as follows:

• The HRTO has determined that it may be appropriate to defer the consideration of the Application pending:

• the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application pursuant to Rule 14 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure.

2The applicant filed submissions objecting to the deferral of her Application.

3The NOID was issued because the substance of the Application before the Tribunal will be the subject of a hearing before the Social Benefits Tribunal on April 8, 2014. A notice of hearing dated October 21, 2013 was included as part of the applicant’s documents supporting her Application.

4Section 45 of 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.

5Having considered all of the circumstances, including the timing of the hearing before the Social Benefits Tribunal, I have concluded that deferring this Application will ensure that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

6The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

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.