Deschenes v. White Spruce Apartments, 2016 HRTO 734

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anne Deschenes

Applicant

-and-

White Spruce Apartments and Girts Sipolins

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Genevieve Debane

Date: May 30, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 734

Indexed as: Deschenes v. White Spruce Apartments

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Anne Deschenes, Applicant

Self-represented

White Spruce Apartments and Girts Sipolins, Respondents

Andrew Lister, Counsel

1The applicant has filed a Contravention of Settlement Application. The corporate respondent was successful in obtaining an order evicting the applicant from her rental unit from the Landlord Tenant Board (the “LTB”). The applicant has filed an appeal of the LTB decision to the Divisional Court and a motion to quash this appeal is scheduled to be heard on June 7, 2016.

2On February 9, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, which amongst other things sought submissions from the parties on the issue of deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the LTB proceeding.

3On March 29, 2016, the Tribunal issued another Case Assessment Direction which directed that the parties, file within 21 days, additional submissions on the issue of deferral. On March 29, 2016, the Tribunal received a voice-mail message from the applicant asking that the Tribunal re-send this Case Assessment Direction to her.

4On April 12, 2016, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal seeking an extension of time to respond to whether the Tribunal should put the “Application “on hold”. The applicant filed a full page hand written letter seeking an extension until May 12, 2016 to respond.

5On April 27, 2016, the Tribunal sent a Registrar’s letter granting the applicant an extension of time to file her submissions to May 7, 2016.

6On April 27, 2016, the applicant called to inform the Tribunal that she required a further extension of time because of various health issues.

7On May 16, 2016, the respondents filed submissions opposing any further extensions in this matter and in support of the deferral of the Application.

Extension Request

8In my view it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to grant the applicant any further extensions of time to file her submissions. I have reviewed this matter and I am of the view that the applicant has been aware for a number of months that she had to file her submissions. The Tribunal has granted her multiple extensions to file her submissions on the issue of deferral. It is clear that the applicant is able to communicate with the Tribunal when she seeks something, for example an Interim Remedy or an extension of time.

9I am not satisfied that there is a valid medical basis to substantiate applicant’s inability to file her submissions. Further, I note that the applicant has made a number of requests for accommodation. It is unclear to me how some of these requests are related to her disability, including that we cannot fax the applicant more than three pages. Further, I note that the applicant has been able to initiate an appeal before the Divisional Court during the same time period.

Deferral

10Section 45 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules 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. The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

11In Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-19:

Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

Some 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 type 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.

12Having considered the matter I find that it is appropriate to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the applicant’s appeal of the LTB decision to the Divisional Court. I find that a significant portion of the allegations in the Application relate to the applicant’s interactions with the landlord and its agents. In these circumstances, and in light of the fact that the hearing at the appeal is ongoing it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the appeal of the LTB decision initiated before Divisional Court and any further potential appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, if any.

Order

13This Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the appeal of the LTB Decision

14The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding. I note that any Request to reactivate the Application must be received within 60 days of the conclusion of the other proceeding.

15I am not seized.