Emmanuel Tize v. David Taylor, 2010 HRTO 747

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Emmanuel Tize

Applicant

-and-

David Taylor

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: April 1, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 747

Indexed as: Tize v. Taylor

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 race. This Interim Decision deals with whether the Application should be deferred.

2On February 10, 2010 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer to the parties seeking any submissions in response no later than February 24, 2010. Neither party has filed any submissions.

3The Application relates to an incident that took place on July 18, 2009 while the applicant was driving. The applicant, who self-identifies as African-Canadian, was stopped and detained by the respondent, a police officer. The Application alleges that the personal respondent’s sole reason for targeting him initially, and then detaining him for an unreasonable time, was because the applicant was driving a nice car and the respondent suspected that it was stolen because of the applicant’s race.

4The applicant filed a complaint with the Toronto Police Service alleging the same discrimination as alleged in the Application. In a letter dated December 7, 2009, the Toronto Police Service communicated its decision not to take further action on its investigation of the applicant’s complaint. The applicant made a request for a review of that decision to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (the “OCCPS”) which remains outstanding. The applicant has provided the Tribunal with a copy of each of these documents.

DECISION

5The 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.

6Some 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.

7I am of the view that deferral is appropriate in this case. The applicant’s review request now before the OCCPS addresses the same issues as those raised in the 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 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.

8Where 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.

9I am not seized of this matter.