McWatch v. Trebas Institute, 2015 HRTO 1633

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bella McWatch

Applicant

-and-

Trebas Institute and Jeff Wright

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: December 2, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1633

Indexed as: McWatch v. Trebas Institute

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Bella McWatch, Applicant

Julia Huys, Counsel

Trebas Institute and Jeff Wright, Respondents

Self-represented

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether consideration of this Application should be deferred pending resolution of a privacy complaint filed by the applicant.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondents discriminated against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The central allegation in the Application is that the respondents failed to accommodate the applicant’s disability while she was attending school.

3In addition to filing her Application, the applicant filed a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in relation to the public disclosure of the applicant’s personal health information by staff of the organizational respondent (the “privacy complaint”).

4On October 21, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the resolution of the privacy complaint. The applicant opposes deferral. The respondents consent to the deferral.

Decision

5The 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 (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). Deferral of an Application is granted for a specific reason - to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

6Some 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 to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. See Nyltray v. Ryerson University Students’ Union, 2012 HRTO 2336 at para. 47.

7In my view, deferral of the Application is not appropriate in this case. This Application concerns an alleged failure by the respondents to accommodate the applicant’s disability in school. In a discrete communication by staff of the organizational respondent, there was an alleged breach of the applicant’s privacy. Any findings in relation to the privacy complaint will have little bearing on the human rights issue raised in the Application. As such, there does not appear to be a risk of inconsistent decisions on facts or law if the two proceedings run concurrently.

ORDER

8For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal will not defer consideration of this Application.

9I am not seized of this matter.