Beverley Tingling v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 933

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Beverley Tingling

Applicant

-and-

College of Psychologists of Ontario, Catherine Yarrow, Rick Morris, and Lesia Mackanyn

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: July 15, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 933 Indexed as: Tingling v. College of Psychologists of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Beverley Tingling, Applicant

Self-represented

College of Psychologists of Ontario, Catherine Yarrow, Rick Morris, and Lesia Mackanyn, Respondents

Peter Osborne and Andrew Porter, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the respondents’ request to dismiss the Application on a preliminary basis, or to defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of another proceeding. In my view, the Application should be deferred. The following are my reasons.

2On April 15, 2015, the applicant filed an Application with this Tribunal under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In view of the fact that the Application contains personal and sensitive information, I am not going to discuss the details of the applicant’s allegations of discrimination in this Interim Decision. However, there is no dispute between the parties that the facts and issues in the Application are currently before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”).

3Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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.

4In Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-19:

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. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

5The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that human rights tribunals are not the only decision-makers that can decide human rights claims. See Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42. Where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising the same human rights issues before a decision-making body with the authority to make determinations about those issues, the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the other proceeding. In such a scenario, the Tribunal’s normal approach is to defer to the other proceeding. See Tekes v. Markham (Town), 2009 HRTO 1665 at para. 7.

6In my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. The facts and issues in the Application are currently before the HPARB, and the applicant has not identified a compelling circumstance which would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the HPARB and any related reviews or appeals.

7Pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal’s Rules and Forms can be found on its website.

8I am not seized of this matter.