Deveaux v. Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 465

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Matthew Deveaux

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: March 2, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 465

Indexed as: Deveaux v. Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), involves allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and sexual orientation in the provision of goods, services and facilities.

2The applicant is alleging that he was “discriminated, sexually degraded, tormented and tortured” by the respondents. He also alleges that a death threat was made against him. Later in the Application, he writes that he was “discriminated for my sexual orientation”.

3The Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board (“Niagara Police”) filed a Response in which it denies the allegations.

4The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (“Ministry”) filed a Response stating that the applicant has not provided sufficient particulars to allow for a meaningful response or to support a prima facie case of discrimination. This respondent has also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking the early dismissal of the Application because it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide). This respondent argues that while the applicant has identified grounds of discrimination, none of the allegations (even if they are accepted) establish differential treatment or a violation of the Code.

5The applicant has retained counsel since filing the Application. Counsel for the applicant has filed a Reply addressing the Ministry’s Request and clarifying the nature of the allegations. In the Reply, the applicant alleges that he was:

treated in a demeaning, degrading and humiliating manner by not having him put his bathrobe on, which came off during a struggle with police. During the struggle Matthew Deveaux indicates that he was shown a taser gun. He was taken in his boxers to the police station and subsequently in boxers to the court, in front of the public. No attempt was made by the police to facilitate the obtaining of clothes for Matthew Deveaux to wear to court. He was not offered even jailhouse clothing. The behaviour of the police at the police station, as indicated by Deveaux having him bend down, the officers laughing and commenting at him indicates knowledge of Deveaux’s sexual orientation and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

6The Tribunal does not have a general power to decide whether the respondents treated the applicant fairly or appropriately. The Tribunal’s powers relate only to alleged discrimination and violations of the Code. In other words, while the applicant has clearly stated that he feels mistreated by the respondents, to fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, he must also explain that this alleged mistreatment relates to a ground under the Code.

7The relationship between the Code and the allegations was not apparent in the Application. The Reply has provided some measure of clarification, particularly with regards to the ground of sexual orientation.

8In my view, read together, the Application and the Reply contain allegations which relate to the Code and which are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide. The Ministry’s Request is therefore denied.

9In rendering this Interim Decision, I make no finding as to whether or not the allegations are made out. I have simply concluded that at least some of the allegations relate to grounds listed in the Code and that, as a result, the matter is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide.

10The Application and the Reply, read together, contain allegations that are sufficiently detailed to allow the respondents to file a meaningful response. Of course, the respondents may respond to any new information that comes to light through the disclosure process.

11Within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents may file amended Responses. Within 20 days of the date of this Decision, the applicant may file a further Reply, dealing only with new issues raised in the amended Responses, if any.

12I am not seized of this matter.