Christie Leong v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 725

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 Bilyj, Rebecca Parkins and Kevin Woodley

Respondents

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: March 31, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 725

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

1This Application, filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”), alleges discrimination in respect of services on the basis of disability.

2This Interim Decision addresses a request made by the applicant to reactivate the Application which was deferred by the Tribunal pending the result of a review of a similar complaint made by the applicant with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (“OCCPS”): 2010 HRTO 400.

3The Tribunal’s decision was issued on February 22, 2010. In it, the Tribunal determined that deferral of the Application was appropriate, pending the decision of OCCPS in respect of the applicant’s complaint. The OCCPS has yet to render a decision in respect of the applicant’s complaint.

4As counsel for the institutional respondent points out, the Tribunal’s Rules set out the manner in which a matter which has been deferred may be brought back on for hearing before the Tribunal. Rule 19 states that a request to reactivate a deferred Application must be made no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding and that a copy of the decision issued in the other proceeding must be attached.

5The applicant’s request to reactivate this Application is premature because the other proceeding before OCCPS has not yet concluded. The decision to defer the Application was made only one month ago and there are no circumstances identified by the applicant which warrant the Tribunal allowing the applicant to reactivate the Application. Having made the decision to defer, the Tribunal will not typically proceed with an application before the other proceeding to which it has deferred has concluded, simply because a party feels that the other proceeding is not moving along as quickly as desired: Franks v Financel Services Commission of Ontario, 2009 HRTO 1119.

6The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, including Rule 19 on deferral, are available on its website, www.hrto.ca.

7I am not seized of this matter.