Leong v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 400

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christie Leong

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, Wiliam Bilyyj, Rebecca Park and Kevin Woodley

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: February 22, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 400

Indexed as: Leong v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

1This Application was filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code") alleging discrimination in respect to services on the basis of disability. This Interim Decision addresses a request made by the respondents to defer the Application pending the result of a review of a similar complaint made by the applicant with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services ("OCCPS").

2The Application relates to an incident that took place on December 26, 2008. The applicant was attempting to confront a boyfriend at his house about his behaviour which gave rise to an altercation between the two of them. The boyfriend called 911. The personal respondents were involved in responding to the call. The Application alleges that the personal respondents proceeded to treat the applicant in a demeaning and discriminatory manner, culminating in her arrest because they perceived that she was mentally ill.

3The applicant filed a complaint with the OCCPS based on her treatment and arrest on December 26, 2009. A copy of this complaint is before me. The OCCPS then referred the complaint to the Peel Police Services to investigate the allegations. The Peel Police Services' Public Complaints Investigation Bureau subsequently conducted an investigation and issued a decision on July 21, 2009 concluding that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the applicant's complaint. On August 5, 2009 the applicant asked the OCCPS to review the Peel Regional Police Service's decision. This review remains outstanding. On October 20, 2009 the applicant filed her Application with the Tribunal.

DECISION

4The 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.

5Some 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.

6I am of the view that deferral is appropriate in this case. The applicant's complaint to the Peel Police Services' Public Complaint Investigation Bureau is identical to her Application before the Tribunal. To proceed with the Application would needlessly lead to concurrent processes dealing with the same facts and issues. Moreover, in some circumstances, the Tribunal has found that the public complaint investigation process and subsequent review by OCCPS constitutes a "proceeding" within the meaning of section 45.1 of the Code and that this type of proceeding can appropriately deal with the substance of an Application before the Tribunal. In Qiu v. Neilson, 2009 HRTO 2187 and Pamula v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2010 HRTO 73 the Tribunal dismissed Applications under section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that they had already been appropriately dealt with by the OCCPS. Given these circumstances it is appropriate to defer consideration of the applicant's Application.

7Where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

8I am not seized of this matter.