Dion Rinaldi v. Paragon Security, 2016 HRTO 1280

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dion Rinaldi

Applicant

-and-

Paragon Security

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: September 30, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1280

Indexed as: Rinaldi v. Paragon Security

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dion Rinaldi, Applicant

Self-represented

Paragon Security, Respondent

Daniel Chodos, Counsel

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin.

2In the Application, the applicant alleges that he was subjected to discriminatory conduct by the respondent’s personnel on February 25, 2016, and April 27, 2016. In its Response, the respondent denies the allegations, but also submitted that the Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of a related action in Small Claims Court. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer on August 24, 2016, inviting the parties to make submissions regarding whether the Tribunal should defer the Application.

3The applicant filed submissions opposing deferral on September 23, 2016. The applicant submitted that his civil claim seeks damages for torts that occurred between February 2 and April 27, 2016, and that the civil claim and this Application raise different facts and issues. The applicant states that he has omitted evidence regarding the human rights aspects of his dispute with the respondent from his claim to the Small Claims Court. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that there is no risk of inconsistent findings of fact and law. The applicant submitted that he seeks damages for torts in the civil claim and does not seek an order under section 46.1 of the Code. The applicant also submitted that his claim before the Small Claims Court is at an early stage as a settlement conference has been scheduled for October 26, 2016.

Analysis and 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). 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. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the same parties are involved in other legal proceedings, see Haskins v. TNS Canadian Facts, 2008 HRTO 287. 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: see Calabria v. DTZ Barnicke, 2008 HRTO 411, and Kaj v. Orsini Bros. Inns, 2009 HRTO 170.

5There is no question that the allegations on which this Application is based also form part of the applicant’s civil claim. While the civil claim also makes other allegations against the respondent, there is significant overlap in the factual issues in these proceedings, as the Court will be required to make findings of fact regarding the alleged incidents of February 25 and April 27, 2016. In these circumstances, the potential for inconsistent findings arises. I also note that the civil action is at a more advanced stage, as a settlement conference has been scheduled for late October, whereas this proceeding remains at the pleading stage. Consequently, I find it appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the civil action.

6The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the civil action has concluded.

7I am not seized.