Veronica Bickle v. The Town of Ajax, 2014 HRTO 693

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Veronica Bickle

Applicant

-and-

The Town of Ajax

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: May 14, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 693

Indexed as: Bickle v. Ajax (Town)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Town of Ajax, Respondent

Andrew Zabrovsky, Counsel

Reasons for Decision

1By Application dated February 20, 2014, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability contrary to Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. Specifically, she alleged that the respondent discriminated against her by failing to provide captioning for televised council meetings. The applicant has also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) against Rogers TV-Durham in which she raises the same allegations of discrimination.

2On March 20, 2014, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Defer (“Notice”) its consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the CHRC proceeding. The Tribunal also sent a copy of the Notice to the respondent. The Tribunal advised both parties in the Notice that they could make submissions on the issue of deferral by April 22, 2014.

3The applicant did not respond to the Notice. The respondent argued in favour of deferral.

4Due to the overlapping factual and legal issues in the Application and the CHRC complaint, and the absence of any opposition to deferral, I find it appropriate to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the CHRC complaint.

5The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be re-activated after the CHRC proceeding has concluded. In particular, it should be noted that a party who wishes to re-activate the Application must file a request to do within 60 days of the conclusion of the CHRC proceeding.

6I am not seized of this matter.