Muharem Jelec v. Pembridge Insurance Company, 2016 HRTO 1571

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Muharem Jelec Applicant

-and-

Pembridge Insurance Company Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: December 7, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1571 Indexed as: Jelec v. Pembridge Insurance Company

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Muharem Jelec, Applicant Self-represented

Pembridge Insurance Company, Respondent Sarah Hurowitz, Counsel

1By Application filed June 29, 2016, the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him in the delivery of a service on the basis of his disability and in acts of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2This Interim Decision considers whether to defer this Application pending completion of proceedings that are concurrently before the Automobile Accident Benefits Service Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”).

3The respondent requested that the Application be deferred pending the completion of the proceeding before LAT. The respondent submits that the issues to be determined by LAT are same as the issues that are set out in the Application.

4The applicant opposes all of the requests to defer. He submits that the other proceeding has not dealt with the substance of the Application and that the respondent’s claims at the LAT are not true.

ANALYSIS

5Deferral 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. In considering whether to defer an application, the Tribunal will look at 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 to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

6The document filed for the LAT proceeding indicates that the issues to be determined by LAT are whether the respondent should be covering medical expenses and income replacement benefits. These issues and the remedies appear to be the same as those set out in this Application.

7Further, the underlying events giving rise to both the LAT proceeding and the Application to the Tribunal are the same. Many of the facts supporting this Application appear to be substantially the same as the facts that will be determined by the LAT.

8It would appear that there is a significant degree of overlap between the facts and issues in this Application and the LAT proceeding. If the two proceedings were allowed to proceed concurrently, there is a real risk of inconsistent findings on the same issues.

9For these reasons the Application is deferred.

ORDER

10For the reasons stated above, the Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the Automobile Accident Benefits Service Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeding.

11The Tribunal’s Rule 14 sets out the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of another proceeding. Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure require that a request to reactivate a deferred Application must be made within 60 days of the conclusion of the other proceeding.

12I am not seized of this matter.