Stanley v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2012 HRTO 1444

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tariq Stanley Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: July 24, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1444 Indexed as: Stanley v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tariq Stanley, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minster of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent Marnie Corbold, Counsel

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, services and facilities because of race, colour, and creed. Specifically, the applicant alleges racial and creed profiling that occurred against him by the respondent while he was in the East Detention Centre.

2The respondent has filed a Response and the applicant has filed a Reply. In both the Application and the Response, the parties referred to criminal charges that were laid against the applicant while he was in the East Detention Centre.

3The applicant has also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in which he requests to defer the Application until the end of criminal proceedings related to his criminal charges. The respondent filed a Response to the RFOP in which it stated that it takes no position on the applicant’s request to defer.

4In all the circumstances, including the fact that the respondent does not oppose the deferral request, it appears to the Tribunal that it be may appropriate to defer consideration of the Application, pending completing of the criminal proceedings.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, in such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on fact or law.

6The Tribunal has also deferred applications where there are ongoing criminal proceedings involving the same parties, where the applicant or the respondent was the party who was criminally charged. See G.G. v. Image Printing and Signs, 2010 HRTO 1953, and the cases cited therein at para. 10, as well as McVeety v. Glenile Electric Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1210.

7In these circumstances, it appears appropriate to defer the Application. The criminal charges appear to be related to the events of discrimination as described in the Application.

8Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application until conclusion of the criminal proceeding against the applicant. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back before the Tribunal after the criminal proceeding has concluded.

9I am not seized of this matter.