HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gawain Coley
Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board
Respondent
Interim decisiON
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Coley v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board
1This is an Application filed June 30, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceeding (Request) that this Application be consolidated with another which the applicant has filed or intends to file pursuant to section 34 of the Code (the s.34 Application). The respondent objects to the Request.
2The Tribunal has no record of the s.34 Application having been filed although the copy attached to the Request is dated January 14, 2010.
3The allegations in the complaint underlying this Application relate to an incident of alleged misconduct by two police officers in May 2006. The allegations in the s.34 Application relate to an incident involving the same police force, but different individuals, which the applicant states occurred in 2010 but must have taken place in a prior year, likely 2009.
4The respondent states that it has not been served with the s.34 Application and has only received those parts of the s.34 Application which were attached to the Request. The respondent states that it is in no position to investigate or respond to the allegations in the s.34 Application. The respondent also states that there is nothing to consolidate with this Application until such time as the s.34 Application is delivered to it.
5The respondent states the two Applications appear to relate to two discrete events separated in time by almost four years. The Tribunal has refused to consolidate two Applications when they are at different stages, which is clearly the case here; the instant Application is scheduled for hearing at the end of September while the s.34 Application has not yet been formally received by the Tribunal. It would not be appropriate to consolidate the two Applications. The respondent relies on Gwyn v. Toronto 2010 HRTO 857 in support of this position.
6I agree with the respondent. It would not be fair, just or expeditious to consolidate the s. 34 Application with the instant matter. It has not yet been delivered to the respondent and the respondent has not been afforded an opportunity to respond to it. It would not be fair or just to require the respondent to proceed to a hearing in September on these new issues. The practical consequence of consolidating the Applications would be the cancellation of the September hearing date and the re-scheduling of it for several months or more later. This is hardly fair, just or expeditious.
7The Request is dismissed. The applicant is directed to file his section 34 application with the Tribunal’s Registrar at 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor, Toronto ON M7A 2A3, by fax 416-326-2199, email HRTO-Registrar@ontario.ca or by using the SmartForm format available on the Tribunal’s website www.hrto.ca.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of May, 2010,
”signed by”____________________
David Muir
Vice-chair