Cosier v. York Region Children’s Aid Society, 2015 HRTO 1578

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Reagan Cosier
Applicant

-and-

York Region Children’s Aid Society, Marci Kivisto and William Chen
Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: November 20, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 1578
Indexed as: Cosier v. York Region Children’s Aid Society

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Reagan Cosier, Applicant
Self-represented

York Region Children’s Aid Society, Marci Kivisto and William Chen, Respondents
Amelia Daurio, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s September 30, 2015 request to reactivate her deferred Application. The respondent filed a Form 11 Response to the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings.

3Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

4The applicant states in her request that she no longer is involved with the respondent and therefore this Application can move forward.

5The respondent submits that the court proceedings in relation to which this Application was deferred remain outstanding and the applicant remains a party to them. The respondent anticipates the court proceedings potentially will be resolved at the next court date of December 8, 2015 by an agreed Statement of Facts, depending on the applicant’s position.

DECISION

6The Interim Decision deferring this Application, 2015 HRTO 239, expressly noted that the matter was deferred pending the conclusion of the court proceeding.

7The basis for reactivation as set out in the Interim Decision has not been satisfied. As such, the applicant’s request is premature and I decline to reactive this Application. A request to proceed with a deferred application can only be granted when the court proceeding, upon which the application was deferred, has been completed.

8Accordingly, the applicant’s request to reactivate this Application is denied as premature.

9I am not seized of this matter.