Telford v. Owen Sound Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 204

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James Telford

Applicant

-and-

Owen Sound Police Services Board, John Ford and George Suchomel

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: January 28, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 204

Indexed as: Telford v. Owen Sound Police Services Board

1The applicant filed an Application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") on June 30, 2009. This Interim Decision addresses a request to defer the Application pending the result of a disciplinary hearing to be conducted under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 as amended.

2The applicant self-identifies as an aboriginal person who suffers from an Acquired Brain Injury. During the afternoon of July 13, 2007 the applicant and others were approached by two officers employed with the Owen Sound Police Services Board (the "Board"). As a result of the events that occurred that day, the applicant filed a police complaint on January 9, 2008 and a human rights complaint on January 27, 2008.

3Following an investigation by the Professional Standards Bureau, the Chief of Police wrote to the applicant on June 25, 2008 advising that the allegations of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority (relating the unnecessary and excessive use of force); the unnecessary exercise of authority (relating to an unlawful search), and discreditable conduct (relating to illegal racial profiling) were unsubstantiated.

4The applicant exercised his right for a review of the decision to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) and OCCPS determined that there was sufficient evidence to pursue the two allegations relating to unnecessary exercise of authority.

5However, OCCPS specifically confirmed the decision that the allegation of racial profiling was unsubstantiated was appropriate, and declined to refer this allegation to a hearing under the Police Services Act.

DECISION

6Deferral 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. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

7Some 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 status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

8It appears that the proceedings under the Police Services Act will address some, but not all of the allegations raised by the complaint. However, there is a likelihood that the proceedings under the Police Services Act may determine certain factual matters that are likely to arise in this Application. This raises the possibility of two agencies proceeding concurrently to make findings of fact with respect to the incidents of July 13, 2007. In my view it is appropriate to defer this Application after the proceedings under the Police Services Act have been concluded.

9The parties' attention is also drawn to the cases of Qiu v. Neilson, 2009 HRTO 2187 and Pamula v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2010 HRTO 73 which address the situation whether a determination by OCCPS may give rise to a dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code. If the applicant brings this matter to the Tribunal following the completion of the other proceedings, the Tribunal may seek submissions on the application of those cases to this Application, back on after the applicant's complaint to the PGSB has been concluded.