HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
M.A. on behalf of M.Y.
Applicant
-and-
Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario and Richard Nadeau
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Date: April 24, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 533
Indexed as: M.A. v. Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
M.A. on behalf of M.Y., Applicant Self-represented
Conseil des Écoles Publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario and Richard Nadeau, Respondent Paul Marshall, Counsel
1This Application, which is filed on behalf of a minor on November 10, 2014, alleges discrimination with respect to services based on a number of prohibited grounds contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant indicated that a statement of claim was issued on December 20, 2013 against the same respondents.
2The Tribunal sent to the parties a Notice of Intent to Defer (the “Notice”) seeking submissions as to whether it is appropriate to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.
3The applicant opposes deferral whereas the respondents take the position that the Application should be deferred.
DECISION
4The 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). The Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
5Applying these principles to this case, I find that it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the civil proceeding. It is clear, based on a review of the documents, that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the statement of claim. It would not be constructive to have two proceedings consider concurrently the same facts as this may lead to contrary findings and decisions. Therefore, it is most fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the civil proceeding.
6The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of April, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair