Bahramzadeh-Germi v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 2083

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Reza Bahramzadeh-Germi

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and William Blair

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: November 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2083

Indexed as: Bahramzadeh-Germi v. Toronto Police Services Board

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the Toronto Police Service Board’s (the “Board”) request to defer this Application pending the completion of the applicant’s civil proceeding against it and an individual police officer. The applicant filed a separate Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) in which he asked the Tribunal to proceed with his matter without delay and “establish” a hearing date. In light of my ruling below on the question of deferral, it is not necessary to address the applicant’s request.

2The applicant filed this Application on January 29, 2010, alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the Board on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Chief of Police was subsequently added as a respondent to this proceeding.

3The Board was served with the applicant’s Statement of Claim on January 13, 2011. The Statement of Claim alleges negligence and a “hateful and brutal arrest” concerning an incident that is alleged to have taken place in July 2008 and the events arising from that incident.

4In a previous Interim Decision on whether to dismiss the Application pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Code, I made the following finding: “…while there is certainly overlap in the factual background to both the Statement of Claim and the Application, it would appear that each document rests on different legal theories and seeks remedies for different wrongs.”

DECISION AND ANALYSIS

5The 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.

6In its Response, the respondent argues that the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the civil proceeding because there is an overlap in the allegations in the civil proceeding and the Application. Although this appears to be true, the level of duplication appears to be minimal. For that reason alone, deferral is not warranted.

7Moreover, the respondent acknowledges that the civil action is in its very early stages, and the parties have yet to proceed to discoveries. It is not even clear whether the defendants to the civil matter have filed their Statement of Defence. It would appear that the civil action is still years from proceeding to trial, should it ever reach that stage. This also militates against deferral.

8I 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.

9I am not seized of this matter.