Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Francine Iokia Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: July 4, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1272 Indexed as: Iokia v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board
1This Interim Decision concerns an Application filed on March 14, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant’s allegations arise from an incident in which the applicant was criminally charged by the respondent police officers. The applicant also laid criminal charges against others involved in the incident. This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related criminal proceeding.
2In filing the Response, counsel for the respondent requested that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings against the applicant. The respondent notes that the trial date for the charges against the applicant is set for September 21, 2011. The respondent states that a trial date for the charges laid by the applicant has not yet been set.
3By letter of June 8, 2011, the Tribunal asked the applicant to respond to the request for deferral by June 22, 2011.
4On June 16, 2011, the applicant filed a number of documents, and copied them to the respondent. The documents filed do not refer to the request to defer.
5In considering all of the circumstances in this case, it appears to the Tribunal that it may be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application, pending completion of the criminal proceeding against the applicant.
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). Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it. However, 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.
7The Tribunal has deferred applications where there are ongoing criminal proceedings involving the parties, where the applicant was the party who was criminally charged. See Hadley v. J.A.C.S. Cartage, 2010 HRTO 516. In the case before me, it appears that there is substantial overlap between the facts relevant to the Application and those referred to in the criminal charges against the applicant. Further, it appears that the court date dealing with these facts is scheduled to take place in less than three months.
8The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the criminal proceeding against the applicant.
9The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which this Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding against the applicant. .
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of July, 2011.
“Signed by”
_____________________________________
Judith Keene Vice-chair