Amelia Daurio

The respondent Children's Aid Society of Ottawa filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of related child protection proceedings.

The applicant supported reactivation, while the respondent Children and Family Services for York Region opposed it.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it inappropriate to reactivate the application or carve out the moving party while the court proceedings, which deal with the same facts and raise the potential for inconsistent results, remain ongoing.

The respondent Children and Family Services for York Region requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent child protection proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the facts, legal issues, and remedies sought were different.

The Tribunal found that the proceedings dealt with the same facts and raised the potential for inconsistent results.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the court proceeding.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related court proceeding.

The applicant argued she was no longer involved with the respondent, but the respondent noted the court proceedings remained outstanding.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, finding that a deferred application can only be reactivated once the underlying court proceeding has concluded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status against a Children's Aid Society and two of its employees.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the same underlying facts were the subject of an ongoing Family Court child protection proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objection that the personal respondents were no longer part of the court proceeding, the Tribunal found that the facts and the institutional respondent remained the same.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the outcome of the court proceeding.