Mira Freidin v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2015 HRTO 865

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: June 29, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 865 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").

2By Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 307 the Tribunal deferred the Application pending the completion of a proceeding at the Social Benefits Tribunal ("SBT").

3The applicant filed a request to re-activate the Application and the respondent filed a request to defer the Application in May 2015. In Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 659 at paragraph 8 I refused the request to re-activate for the following reasons:

I 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.

4On June 11, 2015, the applicant filed another request to re-activate and included a letter from the SBT confirming that the applicant does not intend to raise a Code challenge in the SBT proceeding.

5The respondent filed a response to the applicant's request to reactivate the Application. In this response, the respondent's counsel states that she spoke with the applicant's counsel who is representing the applicant before the SBT and was advised that counsel intends to assert that the "spouse" provisions of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act are discriminatory under the Code.

6Nothing has changed since the Tribunal decided to defer this application in March 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 on September 17, 2015. There are a number of overlapping legal and factual issues in both proceedings. 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. In addition, the applicant's counsel may be asking the SBT to consider a Code challenge to the "spouse" provisions of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

7Therefore, the Application will continue to be deferred pending the completion of the SBT proceeding.

8The Tribunal will not consider further requests to re-activate the Application until after the SBT decides the applicant's appeal.

9I am not seized.