Wainwright v. Effort Trust Company, 2016 HRTO 424

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shawn Wainwright Applicant

-and-

Effort Trust Company and Roger Adams Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: April 5, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 424 Indexed as: Wainwright v. Effort Trust Company

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shawn Wainwright, Applicant Self-represented

Effort Trust Company and Roger Adams, Respondent Tim Kelly, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s March 8, 2016 Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) to reactivate his deferred Application. The respondent has not filed a Form 11 Response to the applicant’s Request and the time to do so has now passed.

2Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

DECISION

3The Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1266 deferring this Application found that the substantial overlap of facts and issues between the Application and the civil action could result in inconsistent determinations if they were allowed to proceed concurrently. In order to avoid such inconsistencies, the Tribunal ordered that this Application be deferred pending the resolution of the civil action.

4In a subsequent Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 77, which determined the applicant’s Request to reactivate the Application, the Tribunal determined that there was no basis for reactivation and the applicant’s Request is premature. The civil action was still ongoing and therefore the Application could be reactivated. The risk of inconsistent findings between the trier of fact in the civil action and a Tribunal adjudicator remained.

5When the applicant filed the further Request to reactivate on March 8, 2016, he attached an Affidavit of Documents submitted by the defendant in the civil action. He states that the list of documents demonstrates that there is no overlap between the civil action and this Application.

6I find that I must deny this Request to reactivate. As the Tribunal stated in 2014 HRTO 1266, the documents filed in the civil action and the narrative in this Application show “substantial overlap between the facts alleged in both proceedings and the issues that these allegations raise”.

7The Affidavit of Documents is a list of all documents that are relevant to the issues to be determined in the civil action. Nothing in this Affidavit of Documents or the Form 10 filed demonstrates that the civil action, that has been found to have significant overlap with this Application, is resolved.

8Until the matter before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice with court file number 13-44786 is resolved, this Application will not be reactivated.

9Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to reactivate this Application is denied.

10The applicant should not file any further Requests to reactivate until the civil action is resolved.

11I am not seized of this matter.