King v. Sherbourne Health Centre, 2015 HRTO 1734

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Randy King Applicant

-and-

Sherbourne Health Centre and Melanie Oda Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 24, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1734 Indexed As: King v. Sherbourne Health Centre

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability.

2In a Case Assessment Direction issued on November 23, 2015, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether or not some or all of this Application ought to be dismissed because all or part of it has no reasonable prospect of success.

3The summary hearing is scheduled to take place by telephone conference call on January 15, 2016.

4On December 15, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (“Request”) seeking an Order deferring this Application pending the conclusion of another proceeding he has launched.

5By correspondence dated December 16, 2015, the respondents were requested to file their responding submission by December 23, 2015.

6The respondents oppose the Request.

7The Request is denied.

8The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case.

9The Tribunal will most often defer to another proceeding in which some or all of the issues raised in the Application will be finally determined. This avoids the danger of re-litigation of the same or similar issues and the possibility of inconsistent or conflicting findings of fact and law.

10The applicant seeks deferral because he has recently filed one or more complaints to the College of Registered Psychotherapists of Ontario (“College”). The applicant argues that the issues before the College and the Tribunal are largely the same and that is most fair just and expeditious to defer this case pending the conclusion of his complaints before the College.

11As indicated above it is not appropriate to defer this Application in the absence of the consent of all of the parties. Evidently the respondents oppose the Request and while I do not agree with all of their reasons, I do agree that the deferral will result in significant delay in the processing of this Application in favour of a proceeding that as a matter of law can have no impact on this case. This is because of, as the respondents point out, the effect of section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, as amended. In this regard I agree with and adopt the reasons of my colleague in the Decision Campo v. Hancock, 2015 HRTO 1066.

12For these reasons the Request is denied and the summary hearing scheduled on January 15, 2016 will proceed.

13I am not seized.