John Cvitko v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Ontario Provincial Police), 2010 HRTO 148

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

John Cvitko Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Ontario Provincial Police) Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: January 25, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 148 Indexed as: Cvitko v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

1This is an Application filed on August 31, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant alleges that the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) discriminated against him in arresting him on January 4, 2008. There is very little information in the Application, beyond the statement that the OPP did not allow him to wear footwear, nor bring proper medication. He states that he was assaulted by a police officer resulting in serious injuries including a broken nose, bruised face and broken eardrum.

3The applicant alleges that he was mistreated by the OPP due to his ethnic origin, which he describes as Croatian.

4The respondent filed a Response but states that it is unable to complete parts of it because of a lack of particulars. Further, it takes the position that the allegations provided in the Application do not describe events that would constitute violations of the Code.

5Despite the absence of particulars, the Response does address the applicant’s arrest on January 4, 2008. The respondent acknowledges that the applicant did sustain some injuries during an arrest. It states that the applicant resisted arrest and in the process assaulted a police officer. It takes the position that the force used was the result of the actions of the applicant and were appropriate in the circumstances.

6The respondent filed a Request for Order seeking the dismissal of the Application on the basis that it does not contain allegations that amount to a prima facie claim of discrimination under the Code, that it does not raise matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and that it is filed beyond the one-year time limit provided in the Code.

7The applicant’s response to the Request states that the request for early dismissal should be refused as “the Wasaga Beach OPP detachment exhibited discrimination against the applicant in that it failed to accord the Applicant an opportunity to explain himself prior to his arrest. The method and manner of the arrest were motivated by ethnic considerations.” The applicant also states that it was the police officers who were the aggressors, and that he disputes the factual assertions in the Response.

8The Tribunal finds it appropriate to direct a conference call hearing to hear the parties’ submissions on the Request. Tribunal will also direct the applicant to provide further particulars in writing before the conference call, with respect to his claim of discrimination, and with respect to the delay in filing the Application.

9The Tribunal therefore directs as follows:

a. A two-hour conference call hearing will be convened in this matter. The purpose of the conference call is to hear the parties’ submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed because of delay, because it does not raise an arguable claim of discrimination under the Code, or because it does not raise matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide.

b. No later than two weeks prior to the date scheduled for the hearing, the applicant must provide written submissions explaining his delay in filing the Application. In the written submissions, the applicant must also address the version of events provided by the respondent and, to the extent he disagrees with any of the facts asserted, provide his version of those facts. He must provide any and all facts that he believes support his claim that his treatment by the OPP was motivated by his ethnic origin.

c. The respondent may respond to the applicant’s submissions by no later than one week before the date scheduled for the conference call.

d. Any party wishing to rely on documents or case law not already before the Tribunal, for the purpose of the conference call, must provide those to the other party and the Tribunal along with their submissions.

10I am not seized of this matter.