HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Peter Zawadowski
Applicant
-and-
CBC Investments
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Zawadowski v. CBC Investments
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Peter Zawadowski, Applicant
Self-represented
CBC Investments, Respondent
Pasqualino Di Monte, Counsel
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of a proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board. In my view, the Application should be deferred. The following are my reasons.
2On October 22, 2014, the applicant filed an Application with this Tribunal under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to housing, and subjected him to reprisals. He acknowledged that the facts of his Application were part of another proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board, but did not request that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the proceeding before that Board.
3On April 29, 2015, the respondent filed a Response, which denied the allegations of discrimination and reprisal, and requested that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board.
4On June 22, 2015, the applicant filed a Reply, which opposed the respondent’s request for deferral because he wants his human rights issues to be dealt with by this Tribunal.
5Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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.
6In 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.
7In my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. There is an ongoing proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board, which was started before the filing of this Application, and is dealing with the same facts situation. Although the applicant is trying to split the issues between the Landlord and Tenant Board and this Tribunal, two proceedings dealing the same facts situation running concurrently clearly raises the potential for duplication of evidence, and the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact and law.
8Therefore, the Application before this Tribunal will be deferred pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board.
9Pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal’s Rules and Forms can be found on its website.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of August, 2015.
“signed by”
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair