Jason Kranz v. Ottawa Police Service and Tracy Turpin, 2009 HRTO 1341

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jason Kranz

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Service and Tracy Turpin

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: August 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1341

Indexed as: Kranz v. Ottawa Police Service

1This is an Application filed on March 10, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"). The Application alleges discrimination by the respondents on the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and creed, and arises out the circumstances of the applicant's arrest on November 6, 2007.

2Although the parties had previously indicated consent to mediation of the Application, the respondents no longer wish to participate in mediation. The Tribunal finds it appropriate to deal with certain outstanding Requests for Order During Proceedings at this time.

3The applicant filed a Request for Order dated June 5, 2009. Although the applicant has checked off the part of the form indicating that he is seeking to amend his Application, it appears that the purpose of the Request is to submit evidence in support of the Application. It is not necessary to seek an order from the Tribunal to submit evidence. Any issues about the admissibility and relevance of evidence will be dealt with as they arise. The Request is denied.

4Other outstanding Requests for Order include a Request from the respondents to dismiss the Application on the basis that it does not disclose a prima facie allegation of a violation of the Code, or that it is untimely, as well as a request that the individual respondent be removed as a party to the Application. The respondents also ask that the portions of the Application relating to "association" and "reprisal" be struck.

5The applicant has an outstanding Request for Order in which he seeks to add an additional personal respondent.

6The Tribunal finds it appropriate to deal with these outstanding Requests together. From the material in the file, it appears that the applicant is restricted in his ability to travel and, potentially, to participate in a Tribunal hearing. It is not clear whether the applicant is able to participate in a telephone conference call. Therefore, the Tribunal directs the parties to file written submissions on the following issues:

a. whether the Application should be dismissed because it has been filed beyond the one-year time limit under the Code. In this respect, the applicant's attention is drawn to section 34 of the Code, which states:

34(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

In his written submissions, the applicant must provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, to show that it was incurred in good faith within the meaning of section 34(2).

b. Whether Tracey Turpin should be removed as an individual respondent, and whether Peter V. Danyluk should be added as an individual respondent. In this respect, the applicant's attention is drawn to the Tribunal's caselaw, some of which has been provided with the respondents' materials. In his written submissions, the applicant should address why these respondents should remain or be added to this proceeding.

c. Whether the portions of the Application dealing with allegations concerning discrimination on the basis of "association" or "reprisal" should be struck.

d. Whether the Application raises a prima facie allegation of a violation of the Code.

7The parties have provided some written submissions already in their Requests, or responses to Requests. They do not need to file additional submissions if they are content to rely on the material previously filed. However, if they wish to provide additional submissions, documents or caselaw in support of their positions, these must be filed as follows:

a. The applicant's additional submissions, documents or caselaw on the issues identified above must be filed with the Tribunal and delivered to the respondents by September 21, 2009;

b. The respondent's additional submissions, documents or caselaw on the issues identified above must be filed with the Tribunal and delivered to the applicant by October 5, 2009;

c. The applicant may reply to the submissions of the respondents by October 19, 2009.

8The Tribunal asks the applicant and the respondent to indicate whether they are satisfied to have these issues determined by the Tribunal without an opportunity for oral submissions. If they wish to make oral submissions, they are requested to state how they wish the oral submissions to be received (by telephone conference call or in person).

9If no party requests an opportunity for oral submissions, the Tribunal may decide the issues on the basis of the material before it.