Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Magdalene Ashton Applicant
-and-
Artisan Charitable Foundation Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: May 29, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 707 Indexed as: Ashton v. Artisan Charitable Foundation
1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that her landlord is harassing her because of her son’s disability. The Application indicated that the events alleged in the Application have been the subject of a number of hearings before the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”).
2On April 14, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer (“NOID”) pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject matter of the Application. The parties were directed to file submissions with respect to the issue of deferral. The respondent was directed to not file a full Response at this time.
3On May 15, 2015, the respondent filed submissions indicating that there remains a pending legal proceeding between the parties at the LTB which raises issues that overlap with the Application. The applicant did not file submissions in response to the NOID or to the respondent’s submissions.
ANALYSIS
4Pursuant 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. In each case, the Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.
5Based on the materials filed, I find that there is an overlap between the subject matter of this Application and the ongoing proceedings before the LTB. In both of these matters, the applicant raises similar concerns that the respondent has mistreated her and her son in relation to the same facts.
6In light of the overlap between the two cases, and given that the history of hearings on related issues between these parties before the LTB, it is appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the LTB matter. To continue with the Application when there is a concurrent legal proceeding hearing evidence and determining related legal issues regarding the same disputed facts risks inconsistent findings of fact and law.
DIRECTIONS
7The Tribunal directs the Application will be deferred pending the completion of the LTB proceeding which is currently ongoing.
8The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure by which a party may request that the Application be reactivated after deferral. It should be noted that a party who wishes to proceed with an Application that has been deferred must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of May, 2015
“Signed By”
___________________________________
Jo-Anne Pickel Vice-chair