Julie Daly v. Don Smith, 2016 HRTO 243

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Julie Daly Applicant

-and-

Don Smith Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price Date: February 24, 2016 Indexed as: 2016 HRTO 243

1This is an Application under the Ontario Human Rights Code in which the applicant alleges that the respondent infringed her rights under the Code.

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated October 27, 2015, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing would be held to determine whether the Application ought to be dismissed on the basis of delay and/or because the substance of the Application had been appropriately dealt with in a proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board within the meaning of s. 45.1 of the Code.

3Subsequently, the Tribunal received a letter from the applicant indicating that the proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board is still pending insofar as she has sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The applicant requests that the proceeding before this Tribunal be deferred, pending the outcome of her application for leave to appeal and/or appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

4The Tribunal directed the respondent to file any submissions he wished to make with respect to whether the Tribunal ought to defer consideration of the Application, pending the completion of the Landlord and Tenant Board and related Supreme Court of Canada proceedings. The respondent has not made any submissions on the deferral issue and the time for doing so has now passed.

5Rule 14 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.

6In this case, it makes sense to defer consideration of the Application pending the completion of the Landlord and Tenant Board and related Supreme Court of Canada proceedings. Pursuant to the Tribunal’s October 2015 Case Assessment Direction, one of the next issues to be determined in this case is whether the above-noted proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of all or part of the Application, within the meaning of s.45.1 of the Code. That issue cannot be determined at this time given that there may not yet have been a final decision in the other proceeding: Steel v. Johnson Controls Automotive Canada LP, 2014 HRTO 1199 at para. 14; Favero v. 1895357 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 688.

7In all of the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant the applicant’s request and to defer consideration of the Application pending the completion of the Landlord and Tenant Board and related Supreme Court of Canada proceedings.

8The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (available online) which set out the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the other proceeding has concluded. In particular, the parties’ attention is drawn to the 60-day time limit for requesting reactivation of the human rights Application. Either party may request reactivation of the human rights Application.

9I am not seized of this case.