David Oliver v. South Simcoe Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 260

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Oliver Applicant

-and-

South Simcoe Police Services Board, South Simcoe Police Service, Bruce Davis, Steve Wilson, Todd Ferrier, Tom McDonald, Craig Johnson, Deborah Carmichael and Al Cheesman Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: March 9, 2009 Citation: 2008 HRTO 260 Indexed as: Oliver v. South Simcoe Police Services Board

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed on January 26, 2009 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges harassment and discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, creed and reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The applicant advises that the facts of his Application are part of a proceeding that is outstanding pursuant to the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended (the "police proceeding"), and requests the Tribunal defer his Application pending completion of the police proceeding. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant's request to defer the Application pending completion of the police proceeding.

3Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal's authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, defer consideration of an application. Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an application it will first give the parties notice of its intention to consider deferral of the application and an opportunity to make submissions.

4The Tribunal received submissions from South Simcoe Police Services Board, South Simcoe Police Service, Bruce Davis, Alan Cheesman, Deborah Carmichael, Tom McDonald, who agreed with the applicant's request to defer. The Tribunal also received correspondence from the South Simcoe Police Association (the "Association"). The Association stated it was not in a position to make any submissions as to why the consideration of the Application should, or should not, be deferred. The Association stated it would not interfere with the Tribunal's determination of the deferral request. The Tribunal did not receive any submissions from the respondents Craig Johnson, Steve Wilson and Todd Ferrier and the time limit for them doing so has now passed.

DECISION

5Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

6In these circumstances, given that no parties objected, the Tribunal has determined that it is appropriate to defer the Application pending completion of the police proceeding. The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline how the Application may be brought back on after the police proceeding.

7I am not seized of this matter.