Murray v. William Mills, 2015 HRTO 20

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Allison Murray Applicant

-and-

William Mills Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Lorida Galante Applicant

-and-

William Mills Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Lorida Galante (on behalf of A.P.) Applicant

-and-

William Mills Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Nalini Singh-Boutilier Applicants

-and-

William Mills Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: January 6, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 20

Indexed as: Murray v. William Mills

1On November 4, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) seeking submissions from the parties on the question of deferring these Applications pending the outcome of a related civil action. This Interim Decision has been anonymized in relation to a minor child in accordance with Rule 3.1.1.

2The civil action engages many of the same issues which are raised in these Applications. In the context of that proceeding there is an interlocutory order preventing the respondent from communicating with the applicants. One of the implications of the no communication order is that the applicants will not participate in parts of the Tribunal’s hearing process, such as case management conferences, if the respondent is present. While it may be appropriate for the Tribunal to conduct private mediation sessions with the consent of the parties, it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to conduct the hearing in that fashion.

3In their Applications, the applicants indicate that there is a court action which is based on the same facts as the Applications. The allegations are too numerous to list here, however, they have been summarized by the applicants as persistent forms of harassment, defamation and abuse over a period of years. The respondent denies the allegations and alleges harassment against the applicants.

4The respondent in these Applications, Mr. Mills, is one of a number of defendants in the civil action. He is accused of defamation and intentional interference with economic relations among other things. The other defendants, including law enforcement, are accused of not acting appropriately on the complaints of the applicants against the respondent. The context for the civil claim is the same as the context for the Applications: the interactions between the parties during and after the period of time that the respondent was volunteering in the business run by the applicants.

5The applicants do not support deferral of these Applications. The applicants argue that the civil action will take time to come to a final resolution and that the minor daughter who is named in one of the Applications is not a plaintiff in the civil action. They also argue that some of the issues of discrimination raised in the Applications are not directly raised in the civil action. The respondent’s written submissions emphasized dismissal rather than deferral of the Applications.

6Pursuant to Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, 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. Deferral of an application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same subject-matter do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

7The Tribunal has deferred applications where parallel proceedings raise similar facts and issues. In such cases, the Tribunal has noted that concurrent proceedings not only increase the burden on the parties, they raise the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact and law. See, for example, Tsehaye v. English District Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 2010 HRTO 1396.

8Since the Applications and the civil claim arise out of the same context, I find that there is a significant factual overlap in this case, especially as it relates to the interactions of the parties during and after their work together. It appears that both proceedings are likely to run in parallel unless the Applications are deferred. There is also a non-communication order issued by the Court in the context of the civil action which will have an ongoing effect on the Tribunal’s ability to adjudicate this matter.

9For these reasons, I have determined that the Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the civil claim.

10The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Applications may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the civil proceeding. It should be noted that a party who wishes to seek reactivation of the Application must file a request to reactivate no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the parallel proceeding. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca under “Law, Rules and Policies”.

ORders

11For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders:

a. The Applications are deferred pending the outcome of the civil proceeding.

12I am not seized of this matter.