Mira Freidin v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2015 HRTO 659

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mira Freidin

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman Date: May 20, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 659 Indexed as: Freidin v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mira Freidin, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Respondent Cheryl Ellison, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On March 7, 2014, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision finding that the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a proceeding at the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”) in accordance with section 45 of the Code and the Tribunal’s Rule of Procedure 14.1.

3Since the March 7, 2014 Interim Decision, the applicant has filed a request to re-activate the Application and the respondent has filed a request to defer the Application. This Interim Decision addresses both sets of requests.

4Since the March 7, 2014 Interim Decision, the SBT has issued a decision which addresses several issues relating to the applicant’s Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) eligibility and payments. However, an additional SBT hearing is scheduled for September 17, 2015 to address other ODSP issues, including Code related claims raised by the applicant’s Legal Counsel.

5Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that 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. The Tribunal will 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.

6I do not find that the material facts have changed since the Tribunal issued its Interim Decision on March 7, 2014. A proceeding relating to some or all of the allegations contained in the Application is ongoing before the SBT, and is scheduled to be heard in several months’ time. I concur with the finding in the March 7, 2014 Interim Decision that deferring this Application until after the SBT proceeding has been completed will ensure that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

7The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the SBT proceeding.

8I am not seized.