HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Allan Byaruhanga
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board, William Blair, Daryl Cherry and Richard Haines
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: Byaruhanga v. Toronto Police Services Board
1This is an Application filed on April 29, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2Mediation did not result in a resolution of the Application. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with certain preliminary issues.
3The applicant has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, requesting the addition of William Blair, Chief of the Toronto Police Service, as a party, as well as leave to amend the Application to seek $10,000 in monetary compensation and pre- and post-judgment interest.
4The proposed respondent and individual respondents consent to the Request, without admitting any entitlement to a remedy. The respondent the Toronto Police Services Board (the “Board”) takes no position.
5Having regard to the nature of the amendments and the positions of the parties, the Request is granted. The style of cause is amended accordingly. William Blair is directed to file a Response to the Application within 30 days of this Interim Decision.
6An outstanding issue is the request made in the Response filed by the Board to dismiss the Application on the basis that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the issues in dispute, or to defer the Application pending the completion of related proceedings.
7It appears from the material before me that the applicant made a complaint under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended about the same events which form the basis of the Application. In that complaint, he alleges that he was abused and harassed by members of 31 Division. His letter of March 25, 2009, providing details of his complaint, is identical to the narrative he provides in support of this Application.
8On July 8, 2009, the investigator assigned to the complaint released his report, in which he finds that the allegations of misconduct cannot be substantiated. The applicant was advised of the decision that there were insufficient grounds to take further action on his complaint, and of his right to request a review of that decision by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (“OCCPS”).
9By letter dated July 23, 2009, the applicant made a request to the OCCPS to review the decision. In the applicant’s Reply of November 19, 2009, he indicates that as of that date, no decision had yet been made by OCCPS.
10If the process is still ongoing before the OCCPS, this raises a question about whether the Tribunal should defer the hearing in this Application pending the conclusion of that process.
11In the circumstances, the Tribunal directs as follows:
The parties are directed to provide the Tribunal with an update as to the status of the OCCPS review.
If the OCCPS process is ongoing, the parties are directed to provide their submissions on whether the Tribunal should defer the hearing in this Application pending the conclusion of that process. The parties should have regard to the Tribunal’s decision Leong v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 400, and others, in which the Tribunal has deferred consideration of an application in similar circumstances.
12The submissions above must be provided to all parties and to the Tribunal by August 13, 2010.
13If the process before the OCCPS has concluded, the parties are directed to provide the Tribunal with any written disposition of the applicant’s complaint by the date above, after which the Tribunal may make further directions.
14I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 4th day of August, 2010.
“Signed by”
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair