Eldorse Mliscogen v. Deanna Durfy, 2015 HRTO 5

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Eldorse Mliscogen Applicant

-and-

Deanna Durfy Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: January 5, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 5 Indexed as: Mliscogen v. Durfy

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Eldorse Mliscogen, Applicant Self-represented

Deanna Durfy, Respondent Gregory Roberts, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request to defer this Application pending the applicant’s leave to appeal application to the Court of Appeal of a Landlord Tenant Board (“LTB”) decision.

2The applicant filed this Application, alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of sexual orientation contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In addition to this Application, he also applied to the LTB for an order determining that he had been illegally evicted for discriminatory reasons. A finding was made by the LTB, which the applicant appealed to the Divisional Court.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, which the applicant did not respond to. By Registrar’s letter, this Application was deferred pending the outcome of the appeal. The Divisional Court issued its Order on October 1, 2014. The applicant requested that his matter be reactivated. By Registrar’s letter dated October 9, 2014, the parties were advised that the Application had been reactivated. A hearing date was then scheduled for March 27, 2015.

4The respondent now seeks to defer the Application pending the outcome of the applicant’s leave application to the Court of Appeal. This request is opposed by the applicant.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). 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. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

6A key objective of deferral is avoid concurrent and potentially conflicting decisions by the Tribunal and other adjudicative bodies on the same or overlapping issues.

7A reading of the decision of the LTB and the Order of the Divisional Court makes it clear that neither body determined it was necessary to address the issues of discrimination raised by the applicant. In light of the history of this matter, it is unlikely that there is a significant danger of conflicting decisions even if leave is granted by the Court of Appeal.

8The respondent’s request for deferral is denied.