Riad v. Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 1807

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ashraf Riad

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board,

Brian Etheridge and Anita Etheridge

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: September 2, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1807

Indexed as: Riad v. Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board

1This is an Application filed on February 1, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2The style of cause is amended to reflect the correct name of the organizational respondent.

3The applicant is the neighbour of the personal respondents, who are a police officer and assistant crown attorney. The applicant alleges discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin and creed.

4The events described in the Application arise out of disputes between the applicant and the personal respondents as neighbours, which are also alleged to relate to the conduct of the personal respondent, Brian Etheridge as a police officer.

5The applicant has made two complaints under the Police Services Act about the conduct of the respondent, Brian Etheridge, concerning substantially the same events described in the Application. The more recent complaint, made in August 2009, resulted in a decision by the Public Complaints Branch of the Waterloo Regional Police that no further action would be taken. The applicant has requested a review of the decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (“OCPC”), and the decision of the OCPC is still pending.

6On February 8, 2010, the applicant swore an Information seeking a Peace Bond against the personal respondents under the Criminal Code, claiming fear of personal injury or damage to property due to “continuous harassment from June 2007 to present…” The particulars provided in support of the Information allege that the personal respondents have, since June 2007, “been consistently intimidating, bullying, criminally and racially harassing, annoying and causing our family discomfort and the extreme feeling of being prisoners in our own home.” The applicant’s particulars substantially overlap with the events described in the Application.

7The personal respondents indicate that a date for the hearing of the application for a Peace Bond has been scheduled for March 28, 31 and April 1, 2011.

8The respondents have requested that this Application be deferred pending the completion of the OCPC review and the Peace Bond application. The personal respondents have also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal of the Application on the basis that it does not raise issues covered by the Code, but arises out of a conflict between neighbours of adjoining properties.

9The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). Deferral 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. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

10Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer having regard to the nature and status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

11The Tribunal has deferred to a proceeding under the Police Services Act, where the complaint under that Act raises the same facts and issues as in the Application: see Leong v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 400; Tize v. Taylor, 2010 HRTO 747. The Tribunal has also deferred an Application where there are pending criminal proceedings involving overlapping facts and issues: Miller v. Bernard, 2010 HRTO 1488.

12In the circumstances before me, I find it appropriate to defer the Application pending the completion of the OCPC and the criminal proceedings. To proceed with the Application would needlessly lead to concurrent processes dealing with the same facts and issues, and risk the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

13The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the other processes. The request to dismiss will be dealt with by the Tribunal if the Application is re-activated.

14I am not seized of this matter.