Christianson v. Windsor Police Service, 2009 HRTO 2075

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson Applicant

• and -

Windsor Police Service and Charles Sasso Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: December 1, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2075 Indexed as: Christianson v. Windsor Police Service

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application on December 23, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal in the area of goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability and association with a person identified by a Code-protected ground.

2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request For An Order During Proceedings seeking to consolidate (and/or to replace) the section 34 Application (2008-01021-I) with his Transitional Application (T-0864-08). This Interim Decision also sets out directions with respect to a potential section 53(8) issue.

CURRENT APPLICATION

3This section 34 Application (2008-01021-I) is against the Windsor Police Service and Police Officer Charles Sasso. The applicant alleges that the organizational respondent and personal respondent Sasso discriminated against him in February 2008 when they refused to accept his complaint of alleged perjury by Sergeant Michael Langlois.

TRANSITIONAL APPLICATION

4The applicant’s Transitional Application (T-0864-08) is based upon a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) that was abandoned in order to proceed before the Tribunal. The complaint alleged that the Windsor Police Service and Sergeant Langlois discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability when they denied him services and called him “paranoid”.

5At the Commission, the applicant sought to have the complaint amended to add Charles Sasso as a personal respondent and to add allegations regarding the February 2008 incident. The Commission declined to amend the complaint and refused to add Officer Sasso. Instead, the Commission recommended that the applicant file a section 34 application with the Tribunal, which he has done and which constitutes the current Application.

6On October 19, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking that the section 34 Application and the Transitional Application be consolidated or, in the alternative, that the section 34 Application replace the Transitional Application.

7The Case Resolution Conference for the Transitional Application was held on November 6, 2009.

REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE

8The Request to Consolidate is denied. Although the section 34 Application and Transitional Application appear to arise out of the related concerns and make similar allegations against some of the same parties, these Applications cannot be processed together because they are at entirely different stages of the Tribunal process. Most significantly, the hearing of the Transitional Application commenced on November 6, 2009, in Windsor where evidence and submissions were heard by Member Andrew Diamond.

REQUEST TO REPLACE

9In his Request for Order, the applicant states, in the alternative, “the request is that T-0864-08 [the Transitional Application] be replaced by 2008-001021-I [the section 34 Application] to prevent the applicant from pursuing a worthless application with no financial remedy...”.

10There is no mechanism within the Tribunal process to simply replace a Transitional Application with a section 34 Application. If the applicant wishes to withdraw his Transitional Application he must make this request in writing to the Registrar-Transition, copied and delivered to the respondents, on or before 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision. Failure to do this by the time set will be accepted as confirmation of the applicant’s intention to continue with that proceeding.

SECTION 53(8)

11In an earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1438, the Tribunal sought submissions on whether the section 34 Application is barred by virtue of section 53(8) of the Code because it appeared that the section 34 Application, the previous Commission complaint and the Transitional Application may deal with the same allegations of disability discrimination in reference to some of the respondents. Submissions have been received from the applicant only. The Tribunal will proceed to make its decision based on these materials in the Tribunal file.

12I am not seized of this matter.