Chatur v. Halton Regional Police Services, 2012 HRTO 1149

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sadrudin Chatur Applicant

-and-

Halton Regional Police Services Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: June 12, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1149 Indexed as: Chatur v. Halton Regional Police Services

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sadrudin Chatur, Applicant Self-represented

Halton Regional Police Services, Respondent Kenneth J. Kelertas, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of race and colour.

2In the Response to an Application (Form 2) the respondent sought the early dismissal of the Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

3In a Case Assessment Direction issued May 23, 2012 the Tribunal indicated its intention to hold this matter in abeyance pending the release of its Decisions in Leong v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board; De Lottinville v. OPP; Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board and Ferguson v. Toronto Police Services Board which deal with the application of section 45.1 of the Code where an applicant has already made a complaint to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director ("OIPRD") alleging racial profiling in respect of the same incidents. The parties in this case were invited to register their objection to this procedure.

4The respondent has consented to this case being held in abeyance pending the release of the Decisions in the above matters. The applicant objects on the basis that the OIPRD process has nothing to do with his case as they would not deal with his complaint, stating to the applicant that it was too late for him to ask for a review.

5Despite the applicant's submission it does appear that the applicant filed two complaints under Part V of the Police Services Act, with the OIPRD and both were referred to the Chief of the respondent police service for investigation. Both were investigated and the complaints were found to be unsubstantiated. The applicant was advised in both cases that if he was not satisfied with the results of the investigations he had the right to ask for a review by the OIPRD. In both cases the applicant appears to have asked for such a review but did so well beyond the 30 time limit for making such a request and the OIPRD declined to entertain the applicant's requests.

6Amongst the issues being determined in the cases above is whether section 45.1 is applicable where a complaint to the OIPRD is referred to investigation by the police service in question but where no review by the OIPRD has been undertaken. This is precisely the issue raised in the case here.

7The Tribunal will in the appropriate case hold a matter down. I find that this is such a circumstance. As indicated above the issue raised by the respondent in their Response regarding the applicability of section 45. 1 in this case is currently being considered by the Tribunal in a leading case hearing. The Tribunal has heard argument in these cases and Decisions are expected in due course. The Tribunal will have had the benefit of submissions from all of the interested parties as well as several intervenors including the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. I agree with the respondent that it would be a poor use of resources, those of the parties as well as the Tribunal, to hear submissions on the application of section 45.1 to these circumstances before the Decisions in the cases above have been released. One way or the other these Decisions will likely be of significant assistance to the parties and the Tribunal in resolving the issue as it is raised in the respondent's preliminary request to dismiss.

8For the reasons above this case will be held in abeyance pending the release of the Tribunals Decisions in the cases above. The parties will be provided an opportunity to make submissions after the release of the Decisions.

9I am not seized.