Sadia Motiar v. Metcap Living Management Inc., 2014 HRTO 744

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sadia Motiar

Applicant

-and-

Metcap Living Management Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: May 23, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 744

Indexed as: Motiar v. Metcap Living Management Inc.

INTRODUCTION

1This Application was filed on December 2, 2013, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and alleges discrimination in the areas of housing and goods, services and facilities.

2This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”).

3In the Application, the applicant alleges that she has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived mental health issues. The allegations include that: the respondent has ignored her complaints concerning noise and harassment by fellow tenants; the respondent has hindered and prevented her from obtaining proper service from the police; and, in response to her complaint that her lock was broken, the respondent denied that the lock was broken.

4In its Response to the Application, the respondent requests that the Application be deferred pending completion of an application about tenant rights that the applicant filed against the respondent at the LTB. The respondent attached a copy of an application that the applicant filed with the LTB on December 2, 2013, wherein she alleges that respondent ignored her complaints of harassment, hindered the service she received from the police, and denied that her lock was broken when she complained about it.

5On March 19, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Defer, directing the applicant to respond to the respondent’s deferral request.

6In correspondence dated March 26, 2014, the applicant indicated that she was dealing with a related matter at the LTB, and stated that a March 26, 2014 hearing before the LTB was adjourned. In submissions dated April 15, 2014, the applicant stated that she was not agreeable to the respondent’s request to defer, but that she would like to have this Application stayed, and leaves that decision to the Tribunal.

DECISION

7Section 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.

8In Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-19:

Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

Some 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 type 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 and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

9In this case, I find that it is appropriate to defer the Application. It is clear that there is a substantial overlap between the facts and issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the applicant’s application before the LTB. It also appears that the matter before the LTB is ongoing, and, although the matter was adjourned in March 2014, hearing dates have been set on more than one occasion.

10The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the applicant’s application before the LTB.

11The 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 other proceeding. If the other proceeding has already concluded, the applicant may file a request to proceed with this Application, for the Tribunal’s consideration, in accordance with Rule 14.3, within 60 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

12I am not seized.