Shawn Wainwright v. Effort Trust Company and Roger Adams, 2016 HRTO 77

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: January 19, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 77 Indexed as: Wainwright v. Effort Trust Company

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shawn Wainwright, Applicant Self-represented

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

INTRODUCTION

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s December 14, 2015 Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) to reactivate his deferred Application. The respondents oppose the Request.

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.

3The applicant states that his reasons for making this Request are that the civil matter has not yet been scheduled for trial and, that due to the individual respondent’s advanced age, he may not be able to provide evidence at the hearing.

4The respondents submit that the Request should be denied. The applicant chose to proceed with a civil action in advance of filing this Application. There is overlap in the facts and allegations of both proceedings and if the Application is re-activated at this time there will be a duplication of proceedings, and prejudice to the respondents in having to incur the additional costs.

DECISION

5The Interim Decision deferring this Application, 2014 HRTO 1266, 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.

6The basis for re-activation as set out in the Interim Decision has not been satisfied. The risk of inconsistent findings remains. As such, the applicant’s Request is premature.

7Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to reactivate this Application is denied.

8I am not seized of this matter.