Coldin v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2011 HRTO 726

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: April 14, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 726

Indexed as: Coldin v. Ontario Provincial Police

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to seek submissions about whether the Tribunal should defer further consideration of the Application pending the resolution of various matters that are currently before the Courts.

2The applicant self-identifies as a Christian Naturist. He alleges discrimination and reprisal by the respondent on the basis of creed. The alleged discrimination includes being arrested on several occasions and the laying of 190 charges by the respondent.

3On the basis of the documents filed with the Tribunal by the parties, it appears that there is at least one civil proceeding still underway. The respondent is not directly a party to that proceeding but several of its employees are named as respondents.

4In its Response, the respondent asked the Tribunal to dismiss the Application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) which provides as follows:

A person who believes that one of his or her rights under Part I has been infringed may not make an application under subsection (1) with respect to that right if,

(a) a civil proceeding has been commenced in a court in which the person is seeking an order under section 46.1 with respect to the alleged infringement and the proceeding has not been finally determined or withdrawn; or

(b) a court has finally determined the issue of whether the right has been infringed or the matter has been settled.

5The Tribunal dealt with the respondent’s dismissal request in Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 1125. The Tribunal found that the civil claim did not allege infringement of the applicant’s rights under the Code and did not appear to seek an order under section 46.1. As a result, the Application was not barred by operation of subsection 34(11).

6The Interim Decision did not consider the question of whether it was appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application until the civil action was resolved.

7The information provided to the Tribunal by the parties indicates that there may also be matters before the Courts involving various outstanding criminal charges. It is not clear how these relate to the charges laid by the respondent which form the factual background giving rise to the Application.

8Section 45 of the Code gives the Tribunal authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative, or at the request of the parties, defer consideration of an Application after providing notice of its intention to do so to all parties and giving them an opportunity to make submissions.

9It may be appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of an application when there are related ongoing proceedings before the Courts. In this case, there appear to be ongoing civil and criminal proceedings before the Courts. However, the Tribunal does not have sufficient information about those proceedings to determine if consideration of the Application should be deferred.

10The applicant and the respondent are directed 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 applicant and the respondent may also make submissions regarding whether the Tribunal should defer further consideration of the Application until the proceedings before the Courts have been resolved.

The information and submissions are to be provided to the Tribunal and the other party by May 12, 2011.