Cosier v. York Region Children’s Aid Society, 2015 HRTO 239

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: February 26, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 239 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”).

2On January 15, 2015, the Tribunal delivered to the parties a Notice of Intent to Defer (“NOID”) advising it may be appropriate to defer the Application because of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. It requested that the parties file any submissions on deferral by February 14, 2015.

3Both the applicant and the respondents filed submissions.

Intent to Defer

4Section 45 of the Code gives the Tribunal the power to defer an application in accordance with its Rules. Rule 14.1 of the Rules states:

The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative, at the request of an Applicant under Rule 7, or at the request of any party.

5A deferral is not ordered automatically when parties are involved in other legal proceedings. However, deferral of an application is often appropriate to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently as that raises the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact.

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 types of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer the Application, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

Parties’ Submissions

7In completing her Application, the applicant filed with the Tribunal a copy of a September 15, 2014 affidavit filed by the respondent, York Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”), in a Family Court Superior Court of Justice child protection matter (“the court proceeding”) involving the applicant and the CAS.

8The CAS submitted that the court proceeding is continuing and will result, by agreement or by court order, in a resolution of the same facts that are the subject of this Application and that the veracity of the facts will be determined in reaching that resolution. It advised a settlement conference is set for April 2, 2015, and if the matter does not settle, the court will advise the parties how the matter will proceed.

9The applicant objected to deferral because as of December 10, 2014, the personal respondents no longer are part of the court proceeding.

10In this case, the same underlying events give rise to both the court proceeding and the Application. The facts relating to this Application and those in the court proceeding are the same. Further, the court proceeding is well-advanced. Although the remedies sought in the two proceedings are different, that alone does not justify proceeding with concurrent applications.

11Although the personal respondents may no longer be involved in the court proceeding, the CAS remains involved. In addition, the personal respondents are or were employees of the CAS, and the facts are the same in both the Application and the court proceeding.

12In the circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the court proceeding. The parties may wish to refer to Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline how the Application may proceed once the court proceeding has concluded.

DECISION

13The Application is deferred pending the outcome of the court proceeding.

14I am not seized of this matter.