HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jermaine Coote
Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board and
Paul Gill
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha
Indexed as: Coote 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 race. This Interim Decision deals with whether the Application should be deferred.
2In their Response, filed on September 2, 2010, the respondents requested deferral of the Application on the basis that there is an ongoing proceeding before another decision-maker raising similar facts and issues.
3The applicant was directed to file a Reply responding to the respondent’s deferral request by October 7, 2010. None was received.
4The Application alleges a pattern of discrimination and harassment by Peel Regional Police, beginning in 1988 and culminating in an incident that occurred on February 19, 2010 when officers attended at the applicant’s residence. The applicant, who self-identifies as African-Canadian, alleges that members of the Tactical and Rescue Unit drew their weapons and unlawfully entered his home while he and his family were made to wait outside in the winter cold.
5The applicant filed a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) in respect of the February 19, 2010 incident. OIPRD referred the complaint to an investigation, which appears to be ongoing.
DECISION
6The 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.
7Some 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.
8Although the Application makes allegations that are distinct from those in his OIPRD complaint, I am nonetheless convinced that deferral is appropriate in this case. The statutory language and jurisprudence of the Tribunal are clear that deferral does not extinguish an applicant’s claims in this forum, but rather freezes them in time, pending the completion of another proceeding. To the extent that there is overlap between the issues, or a similar factual grounding between the proceedings, it makes sense in terms of the administration of justice for these matters to proceed consecutively. Concurrent proceedings dealing with substantially similar evidence are best avoided.
9The parties are no doubt aware that in some circumstances the Tribunal has found that the OIPRD investigation process, along with any subsequent review by OCCPS, constitutes a “proceeding “ within the meaning of section 45.1 of the Code and that such a proceeding can appropriately deal with the substance of an Application before the Tribunal. See Qiu v. Neilson, 2009 HRTO 2187 and Pamula v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2010 HRTO 73. I am not deciding that question at this time.
10Where 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.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of January, 2011.
“Signed by”
Faisal Bhabha
Vice-chair