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 Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
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.
5In an earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 465, the Tribunal denied the Ministry’s Request, holding that, read together, the Application and the Reply contain allegations which relate to the Code and which are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide.
6On March 8, 2010, the Ministry filed a letter with the Tribunal (and provided a copy to the other parties) in which it points out that the Ministry is separate and distinct from the Niagara Police. It argues that the allegations contained in the Application (and clarified in the Reply) relate only to the Niagara Police and incidents which occurred prior to the applicant’s admission to the detention centre. The Ministry argues that there are no allegations against it under the Code and, therefore, that the Application should be dismissed against the Ministry. The Ministry also requests an extension of time to file an amended Response.
7In my view, the Ministry’s letter raises a serious issue that was not addressed in the earlier Interim Decision. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to reconsider the Interim Decision (pursuant to Rule 26.9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure), only as it relates to:
a. the refusal to dismiss the Application against the Ministry; and
b.whether the applicant must provide particulars of its allegations against the Ministry.
8Within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant may provide to the other parties and file with the Tribunal written submissions addressing the Ministry’s letter of March 8, 2010 and the issue of whether the Application should be dismissed against the Ministry.
9Within twenty days of this date of this Interim Decision, the Ministry may reply to the applicant’s submissions by filing its written reply with the Tribunal and providing a copy to the other parties.
10Should the parties fail to provide written submissions as directed, the Tribunal may determine the issue based on the materials already filed.
11The time for the Ministry to file an amended Response is extended until the Tribunal has dealt with the dismissal issue, at which time the Tribunal may set out the timeline for filing the amended Response.
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of May, 2010.
“Signed By”
Michelle Flaherty
Vice-chair