Chang Ning Chi v. The George R. Gardiner Museum, 2011 HRTO 1918

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Chang Ning Chi Applicant

-and-

The George R. Gardiner Museum Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: October 24, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1918 Indexed as: Chi v. Gardiner Museum

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the request to defer this Application pending the completion of the applicant’s civil proceeding against the Toronto Police Service.

2The applicant filed his Application to the Tribunal on July 13, 2011 alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of race, colour, place of origin and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The named respondent, the George R. Gardiner Museum, is not named as a defendant in the civil proceeding, although the two proceedings have some allegations in common.

3Briefly, the applicant alleges that the respondent reported what it believed to be illegal activity to the police and identified the suspect as a man of East Asian descent, in his 40’s or 50’s, and wearing a green or blue coat. The applicant, who was apprehended by the police, alleges he was subject to a brutal detention in which he received many injuries.

4Staff at the respondent museum identified the applicant as being the person they witnessed, and apparently took his picture, against his will while he was in police custody. The applicant makes further allegations against the police for the violent manner he states he was treated during this process.

5His main concern with the respondent appears to be that it has not retracted the allegations that he was involved in this activity, even though he asserts he knows nothing about it and had never been on the respondent’s premises. He also alleges that staff at the respondent misled the investigation into his complaint against the officers in question.

DECISION AND ANALYSIS

6The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that 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 before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

7In its Response, the respondent argues that the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the civil proceeding because the same allegations concerning the police beating are in both the civil proceeding and the Application. Although this is true, it is not clear to me why the respondent would be in any way responsible for the actions of the police (or the damages that resulted from any such actions), which largely took place out of the view and/or control of the respondent.

8Thus, it would appear that those allegations that are duplicative in the two proceedings are, in fact, not properly allegations against the respondent. For that reason alone, deferral is not warranted. Moreover, the applicant advises that the defendants in the civil action have yet to file their Statement of Defence, and the civil action is still far from proceeding. This too would militate against deferral.

9I am not prepared to defer the Application pending the outcome of the civil proceeding at this time. The respondent’s request to defer is denied.

10I am not seized.