Abbott v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 206

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Abbott

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, William Blair and Stephen Ruffino

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: January 28, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 206

Indexed as: Abbott v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Sharon Abbott, Applicant ) Glen Morrison, ) Representative

Toronto Police Services Board, ) Robert Baldwin, Counsel William Blair and Stephen Ruffino, ) Respondents )

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request for a stay of my order dated November 9, 2009 pending judicial review.

2By Case Resolution Conference Decision dated November 9, 2009, 2009 HRTO 1909, I found that the applicant’s race was a factor in how she was treated by the personal respondent, Sergeant Ruffino on March 26, 2007, in violation of ss. 1 and 9 of the Code and further found that the Toronto Police Services Board and William Blair as Chief of Police were jointly and severally liable for the actions of Sergeant Ruffino. I ordered the respondents to pay to the applicant the sum of $5,000 as monetary compensation for the loss arising out of the infringement of the Code including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, together with post-judgment interest on the above at the applicable rate under the Courts of Justice Act commencing 30 days from the date of my Decision.

3On December 8, 2009, counsel for the respondents wrote to the applicant’s representative to request the applicant’s consent to a stay of my order. The applicant denied the request.

4On December 24, 2009, counsel for the respondents wrote to the Tribunal to request a stay of my decision pending judicial review. At that time, the respondents were in the process of obtaining a transcript of the evidence from the hearing, and requested a stay of approximately six weeks to obtain the transcript and a legal opinion as to the merits of a judicial review.

5The Tribunal sought submissions from the applicant regarding the respondents’ request, which were filed on January 18, 2010, and afforded the respondents an opportunity for reply. The respondents have advised that they have now obtained a copy of the transcript and have provided it to counsel and also have obtained a legal opinion. The respondents expect to be able to advise the Tribunal and the applicant as to their position within two weeks.

6Pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules, the respondents have the right to request reconsideration of my decision within 30 days of the date the decision was rendered. In a case such as this, where the respondents arranged for a court reporter to attend the hearing to record the evidence and where they now have a transcript of the evidence, it is important for the respondents to exercise this right of reconsideration in the event that they take issue with any of my evidentiary findings on the basis of the transcript.

7In my view, in the exercise of my discretion to grant a stay, it is appropriate for me to consider that the respondents have not yet exhausted all internal remedies. In this regard, I note that the courts have recognized that a party is required to exhaust all internal remedies prior to seeking judicial review: Harelkin v. University of Regina, 1979 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561. In my view, this would include exercising the right of reconsideration available under the Tribunal’s Rules.

8The applicant’s objection to the granting of a stay in this case is based upon the delay since the time of the events at issue, which occurred in March 2007. While I appreciate that there has been a significant passage of time since the underlying events occurred, in my view the granting of a brief stay of my order as requested by the respondents would not cause undue harm to the applicant. In addition, my award of post-judgment interest will compensate her for any delay in the payment of monies that I awarded in my order.

9However, I am only prepared at this time to grant a stay in order to permit the respondents to file a request for reconsideration in accordance with the Rules. If the respondents choose to make a request for reconsideration, they shall file their request together with the full transcript from the hearing and all submissions in support of their request, including any case law upon which they rely, by no later than Friday, February 5, 2010. Pursuant to the Rules, I have the power to waive the time requirement for filing the request for reconsideration. If the respondents do file a request for reconsideration by February 5, 2010, I will invite and consider any submissions from the applicant as to whether I should exercise my discretion to extend the time for filing the reconsideration request, which are to be filed by no later than February 12, 2010.

10I therefore grant a stay of my order until February 5, 2010 in order to permit the respondents to exercise their right of reconsideration, and if they do so by that time, the stay will be extended until a reconsideration decision has been issued by this Tribunal.