C.G. v. Markstay-Warren Minor Hockey Association, 2014 HRTO 546

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

C.G. by his Litigation Guardian S.G.

Applicant

-and-

Markstay-Warren Minor Hockey Association, Chantal Piquette, and Mark Marois

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

E.G. by her Litigation Guardian S.G.

Applicant

-and-

Markstay-Warren Minor Hockey Association, Chantal Piquette, and Mark Marois

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

C.G. by his Litigation Guardian S.G.

Applicant

-and-

Markstay-Warren Minor Hockey Association, Chantal Piquette, and Mark Marois

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: April 16, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 546

Indexed as: C.G. v. Markstay-Warren Minor Hockey Association

1These Applications, filed under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”), allege that the respondents discriminated against the applicants because of family status and reprised against them contrary to the Code. Among other things, the Applications allege that the respondents discriminated against three minor children, C.G., E.G., and C.G., on the basis of family status when they excluded them from an April 2013 ball hockey tournament because of the alleged actions of one or more of the children’s parents.

2At an earlier stage in this proceeding, the respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Applications pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Code on the basis of a small claims court action that the applicants commenced against the respondents based on the same facts as the Applications.

3Since the small claims court action did not allege that the respondents infringed the applicants’ rights under the Code or seek a remedy in respect of such alleged infringement, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 1900, concluding that the Applications are not barred pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Code. However, in its Interim Decision, the Tribunal sought submissions from the parties with respect to whether the Tribunal ought to defer consideration of the Applications, pending completion of the civil proceeding.

4The applicants have provided their written submissions opposing deferral of the Applications. In particular, the applicants submit that the civil action is not at an advanced stage and that no date has been set for the small claims court trial. Accordingly, the applicants submit that it is undetermined and unpredictable when the action is likely to be considered and resolved by the small claims court. In the circumstances, the applicants submit that deferring the Applications would only serve to delay the hearing of their discrimination claim – which claim will not be determined in the civil action – with no clear benefit or purpose.

5In their Response to the Applications, the respondents request that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Applications. However, the respondents did not make written submissions in support of their position on deferral, despite having been directed to do so in the above-noted Interim Decision.

6Pursuant to Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, 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. Deferral of an Application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same subject-matter do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

7In this case, I am not persuaded that deferring the Applications is warranted. There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate that proceeding with the human rights Applications would create a real risk of inconsistent decisions on the factual or legal issues raised in the Applications. In the absence of such risk, deferring the Applications would be inconsistent with the Tribunal’s mandate of ensuring the fair, just and expeditious resolution of Applications. See St. Louis v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 1637; Pal v. 723736 Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1759; Glen v. York Regional Police, 2010 HRTO 1916.

8Accordingly, the Request to Defer is denied and the Applications will continue to be processed by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal may revisit the deferral issue in the event that new information comes to light with respect to the risk of inconsistent decisions on the issues in the Applications by the small claims court and the Tribunal.

9I am not seized.