Bright Kyereme v. Windsor Police Service, 2009 HRTO 1368

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bright Kyereme

Applicant

-and-

Windsor Police Service

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: September 1, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1368

Indexed as: Kyereme v. Windsor Police Service

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities on the basis of race, color, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex and age.

2The Application names “Windsor Police Services” as the respondent. The respondent has corrected its name to “Windsor Police Service” and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

3The Application is based on an incident or series of incidents which are alleged to have occurred in the evening of January 19 and the early hours of January 20, 2008. It is alleged that the applicant was targeted and assaulted at a University pub by members of the respondent.

4The Response sets out an alternative version of the events and as well, raises a delay issue on the basis that the Application was commenced beyond one year from the date of the incident. The respondent relies on the provisions of s. 34 of the Code which provide:

(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.

5In his Reply, the applicant addresses the delay issue only briefly by indicating that his good faith in delaying the commencement of the Application is demonstrated by the fact that the Tribunal accepted his Application beyond the one-year period.

6The Tribunal is not in a position to determine the delay issue without further submissions from the applicant. The applicant is therefore directed to deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal written submissions addressing the delay issue, and in particular, the basis upon which he states that the delay in commencing the Application was incurred in good faith in accordance with s. 34(2) of the Code. The submissions must be delivered and filed by September 11, 2009.

7The respondent is directed to deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal submissions in reply, and any further submissions it wishes to make directed to the issue of substantial prejudice under s. 34(2) of the Code, by September 23, 2009.

8The applicant may file reply submissions by September 30, 2009.

9On receipt of the above mentioned submissions, the Tribunal may decide the issue based on the written materials or may issue further case management directions.

10I am not seized.