HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
C.J.
Applicant
-and-
York Region Children’s Aid Society and Denise Lehman Brown
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: C.J. v. York Region Children’s Aid Society
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
C.J., Applicant
Self-represented
York Region Children’s Aid Society and Denise Lehman Brown, Respondents
Josephine Kiang, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
1The applicant filed an Application on November 24, 2015, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in housing because of ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, family status, marital status, the receipt of public assistance and her association with a person identified by a ground enumerated in the Code. The nature of the allegations involves minor children, whose identities could be discerned through publication of the applicant’s name. Accordingly, the Tribunal has anonymized the applicant’s name in the title of the proceedings.
2On January 26, 2016, the Tribunal delivered to the parties a Notice of Intent to Defer (“NOID”), advising it may be appropriate to defer the Application because of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application, namely a child protection proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. It requested that the parties file submissions on deferral by February 25, 2016.
3Both the applicant and the respondents filed submissions.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
4Section 45 of the Code gives the Tribunal the power to defer an application in accordance with its Rules, and Rule 14.1 allows the Tribunal to defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party.
5A deferral is not ordered automatically when parties are involved in other legal proceedings. However, deferral of an application is often appropriate to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently as that raises the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact.
6Some 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 types of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer the application, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. See Haskins v. TNS Canadian Facts, 2008 HRTO 287; G.M. v. The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2014 HRTO 1657; Cosier v. York Region Children’s Aid Society, 2015 HRTO 239; and To v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2016 HRTO 51.
7The applicant objects to deferral and submits that deferring the case will allow further violations of her human rights.
8The respondents support the deferral and submit that the case before the Superior Court of Justice involves the applicant and the York Region Children’s Aid Society, both parties to the Tribunal proceeding. They maintain that the allegations of wrongdoing that have been made by the applicant form the basis of the response to the child protection application. They further submit that the Superior Court proceeding will resolve the facts in dispute, which could assist the Tribunal in determining the Application or narrowing the issues and facts to be considered. The respondents indicate that a Case Conference has been scheduled for March 24, 2016, and it is anticipated that the Superior Court may provide direction to the parties at that time on how the child protection litigation should proceed toward final resolution.
9This Application concerns a child protection proceeding undertaken by the organizational respondent and it is apparent that such proceeding remains in progress before the Court. At issue in the Application is whether the respondents’ actions in apprehending the applicant’s children violated her human rights. The proceedings before the Court and this Tribunal deal with the same facts and the issues in the two proceedings appear to overlap.
10Accordingly, I find it appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the Court proceeding.
ORDER
11The Application is therefore deferred pending the completion of the proceeding before the Court.
12The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back after the conclusion of the proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and any appeals from that proceeding.
13I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of March, 2016.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair