HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brian Coldin

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Provincial Police

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: June 10, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1137

Indexed as: Coldin v. Ontario Provincial Police

1This Interim Decision addresses whether the Tribunal should defer further consideration of the Application pending the resolution of matters currently before the Courts.

2The applicant self-identifies as a Christian Naturist and alleges discrimination on the grounds of creed and reprisal.

3In Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1125, the Tribunal determined that the Application was not barred by the operation of section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) which provides that a person may not make an Application under the Code if a civil proceeding has been commenced in a court in which the person is seeking an order from the Court respecting an alleged infringement of the person’s Code-protected rights. The Interim Decision did not address whether the Application should be deferred.

4On April 14, 2011, the Tribunal issued a second Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 726. It directed the parties to provide information regarding their knowledge of the current status of any civil or criminal proceedings involving the applicant which are relevant to the Application. The parties were directed to file this information by May 12, 2011. The information was required to allow the Tribunal to determine if the Application should be deferred.

5Submissions dated May 10, 2011 have been received from the respondent. No information has been received from the applicant.

6The respondent advises that by Statement of Claim dated March 30, 2005, the applicant commenced an action against a number of parties including several of the respondent’s employee officers. The respondent itself is not a party to the action. The Statement of Claim does not allege discrimination on the grounds of creed.

7The respondent further advises that the applicant has been charged on a number of occasions with criminal offences “arising from his naturism/nudism”. According to the respondent, the applicant intends to defend against these charges on the basis that the applicable section of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional.

[8] 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. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

[9] Some 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 status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

10In this case there are both civil and criminal cases before the Courts involving the applicant and arising out of the same circumstances that gave rise to the Application. While the proceedings before the Courts may not directly raise the Code, it appears that there is a substantial overlap between the issues that are currently before the Courts and the issues that the Tribunal would have to deal with in considering the Application. I further note that the respondent has requested that the Application be deferred and that the applicant has not filed any submissions opposing the deferral request.

[11] In these circumstances, I conclude that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer further consideration of the Application. Since there is more than one matter before the Courts relevant to the Application, and since the time frames in which these matters will be dealt with is uncertain, if either party believes that the matters before the Courts have been sufficiently resolved as to allow the Tribunal to appropriately deal with the Application, that party may ask that the Application be brought back on in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules 14.3 and 14.4.

12I am not seized.