Dualle v. Ontario (Education), 2016 HRTO 1501

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kadija Dualle

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario represented by the Ministry of Education

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana

Date: November 24, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1501

Indexed as: Dualle v. Ontario (Education)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kadija Dualle, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario represented by the Ministry of Education, Respondent

Erin Rizok, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of place of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed and reprisal. The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her when staff from its Child Care Quality Assurance and Licensing Branch conducted inspections and subsequently added conditions to her license to operate a daycare following a monitoring visit to the facility. This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) proceeding.

2The applicant appealed the decision to amend her license to the LAT. In its Response, the respondent asks that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application to the LAT appeal. It submits that the Application is nearly identical to the LAT appeal and appended a copy of the appeal form to the Response.

3The applicant opposes the deferral. She submits that she filed her LAT appeal after the Application and that the LAT appeal will only deal with the conditions that were placed on the daycare centre license and will not address her claims of discrimination and harassment.

DECISION

4The respondent’s request to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the LAT appeal is denied.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

6Some factors that have been identified as 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 types 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 Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

7On the basis of the limited materials before me, I do not find it appropriate to defer the Application at this time. While both the Application and the LAT proceedings arise out of the same facts, the Application was filed first, albeit shortly before the LAT appeal. It is not clear from the limited materials before me whether the LAT will consider the discrimination and harassment issues and what remedies are available to the applicant with respect to these allegations. The applicant appears to have appealed the conditions placed on her license to the LAT but seeks different remedies before the Tribunal. It is also not clear what stage the LAT proceedings have reached and if it is even likely that the hearings will occur in tandem. The respondent may renew its deferral request at a later stage if it becomes apparent that there is a significant risk of overlapping legal issues and/or inconsistent legal or factual findings.

8The parties participated in mediation which did not resolve the Application. The matter will therefore proceed in the hearing process and be scheduled for a two-day hearing. The Registrar will send a notice of hearing to the parties.

ORDER

9For the reasons set out above, the respondent’s deferral request is denied.