minicounsel

Antonio (Tony) Borraro v. Greater Sudbury Police Service, 2008 HRTO 435 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

December 29, 2008

Antonio (Tony) Borraro v. Greater Sudbury Police Service, 2008 HRTO 435

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of sex and sexual orientation by the respondent police service, along with a request to expedite proceedings. The Tribunal reviewed the request and found no basis for concluding that the circumstances were truly urgent. The request to expedite was denied.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Antonio (Tony) Borraro

Applicant

-and-

Greater Sudbury Police Service

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: December 29, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 435

Indexed as: Borraro v. Greater Sudbury Police Service

[1] The applicant filed an Application under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in services on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. At the same time, he also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings (Form 14). This Interim Decision addresses the request to expedite.

[2] The expedited hearing process is available where the circumstances of an application “require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute.” [see Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure] Thus, when requesting an expedited proceeding, “the applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances are truly urgent, requiring the resolution of the human rights dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process.” [see [Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/53)]

[3] It would appear from the Application, which was filed on November 20, 2008, that the applicant was arrested on March 25, 2008, taken into custody and subsequently released. From documents supplied by the applicant, it would appear that the charges against him were withdrawn upon the applicant’s entry into a recognizance. On May 12, 2008, he filed a complaint with the respondent’s Professional Standards Bureau, to which he received a response on May 21, 2008. His Application appears to be concerned with not only his original arrest, but also the handling of his subsequent complaint.

[4] Having reviewed the materials filed by the applicant (no material was filed by the respondent), there is no basis for concluding that the circumstances in this matter are urgent, requiring the resolution of her dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process. Accordingly, the applicant’s request to expedite is denied.

[5] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 29^th day of December, 2008.

“Signed by”____________________

Naomi Overend

Vice-Chair