Songja Hasselsjo v. Horizon Utilities Corporation and Mearie Group, 2016 HRTO 85

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Songja Hasselsjo

Applicant

-and-

Horizon Utilities Corporation and Mearie Group

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: January 20, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 85

Indexed as: Hasselsjo v. Horizon Utilities Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Songja Hasselsjo, Applicant

Self-represented

Horizon Utilities Corporation and Mearie Group, Respondents

Brad Halfin, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether this Application should be deferred pending the resolution of a civil claim commenced by the applicant.

2The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated and reprised against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”). She indicated in her Application that she had also filed an action in the Small Claims Court.

3A review of the claim filed with the Small Claims Court, demonstrated that there is great overlap in the facts and issues alleged in that claim and this Application.

4On December 18, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of the Small Claims Court matter.

5The applicant opposes deferral without giving any reasons for her opposition. She has indicated that Deputy Judge Nairn struck her Small Claims Court claim and she has appealed this decision to the Divisional Court.

6The respondents submit that the Application should be deferred. The issues and facts raised in the Small Claims Court claim are the same as those alleged in this Application. In order to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent findings, the Application should be deferred.

DEFERRAL OF APPLICATION

7Under section 45 of the Code, the Tribunal has the authority to defer consideration of an application. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer applications where there are concurrent legal proceedings between the parties. The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. However the Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing proceeding involving many of the same underlying facts and/or issues.

8In my view, deferral of this Application is appropriate due to the overlap in the factual background to the applicant’s claims in each proceeding. Due to this overlap, there is a significant potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings in the two proceedings.

9Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding before the Small Claims Court and any related appeals.

10If, after the Small Claims Court matter and appeal are concluded, a party wishes to proceed with the Application, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days of the conclusion of the Small Claims Court matter and appeals (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

ORDER

11For the reasons set out above, this Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court proceeding in this matter and any related appeals.

12I am not seized.