HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gaylene Smith
Applicant
-and-
London Animal Care Centre (Corporation of the City of London Authorized Agent)
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Date: November 16, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 1473
Indexed as: Smith v. London Animal Care Centre
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Gaylene Smith, Applicant
Self-represented
London Animal Care Centre (Corporation of the City of London Authorized Agent), Respondent
Chris Lewis, Representative
1This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s request to defer the Application pending the conclusion of a proceeding regarding Offence Notice #2360 999 00 6978678B-00 before the Ontario Court of Justice.
2The applicant filed this Application on August 22, 2016, alleging discrimination on the basis of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The allegations in the Application concern a requirement imposed by the respondent that the applicant microchip her dog. Although the applicant identifies the social area of discrimination under section 6 of the Application as “membership in a vocational association” it is more properly services.
3On August 21, 2016, the respondent fined the applicant the amount of $205 under the Provincial Offences Act. The information on the fine indicates that the applicant has 15 days to pay it, book a trial or talk to a prosecutor. The applicant says that she cannot afford to pay the fine. She also argues that because of her creed, she does not believe in inserting a microchip in a living being.
4On August 31, 2016, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 1154, denying the applicant’s request for an order to prevent the respondent from issuing further fines or enforcing the August 21, 2016 fine, and to prevent the respondent from visiting her home. The Interim Decision notes that it was not clear why the applicant could not choose the trial option and address her religious concerns about microchipping in that process.
5In its Response, the respondent requests a deferral of the Application because of an Early Resolution Meeting Notice before the Ontario Court of Justice under the Provincial Offences Act. The meeting is scheduled for January 17, 2017.
6In her Reply, the applicant opposes the request to defer, maintaining that the core issues are different. The applicant maintains that the issue under the Provincial Offences Act relates to the fine while the issue before the Tribunal relates to her beliefs based on her creed.
DECISION
7The 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, 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.
8Some 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.
9The Court proceeding and this Application are based on the same facts and the Offence Notice is currently scheduled for resolution or set trial on January 17, 2017. The applicant may address her religious concerns about microchipping before the Ontario Court of Justice. Consequently, there is significant overlap in the factual and legal issues raised in the proceedings before the Court and the Tribunal, which raises the potential for inconsistent findings if the matters proceed concurrently. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the Provincial Offences Act proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice.
10Pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, where a party wishes to proceed with an application that 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.
order
11The Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the Provincial Offences Act proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice.
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 16^th^ day of November, 2016.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair