Cushnie v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 1842

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paulette Cushnie

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Rhoel Ong, Tiffany Castell, Jeffrey Gough, Michael Lane, Michael Harnish and Katimarie Metzger

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N :

Jamaal Cushnie

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Rhoel Ong, Tiffany Castell, Jeffrey Gough, Michael Lane, Michael Harnish and Katimarie Metzger

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N :

Perry Newton

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Rhoel Ong, Tiffany Castell, Jeffrey Gough, Michael Lane, Michael Harnish and Katimarie Metzger

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N :

Lorenzo Bartley

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Rhoel Ong, Tiffany Castell, Jeffrey Gough, Michael Lane, Michael Harnish and Katimarie Metzger

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: September 26, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1842

Indexed as: Cushnie v. Toronto Police Services Board

1The four applicants each filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on May 17, 2011.

2In Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 1701, issued September 16, 2011, the Tribunal deferred proceeding with these Applications pending the conclusion of ongoing SIU and OIPRD investigations, and a criminal proceeding against one of the applicants. As the four Applications all arise out of the same events and contain virtually identical allegations and particulars, and involve the same respondents, the Tribunal also determined in this Interim Decision that the Applications would be all dealt with together.

3On July 25, 2012, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants. The applicants were asked to inform the Registrar in writing within 30 days of the date of the letter whether the other proceedings remained ongoing and, if possible, to indicate when they were expected to be completed. The letter went on to warn the applicants that failure to provide the requested information might result in the Tribunal dismissing their respective Applications as abandoned.

4None of the applicants have responded to the Tribunal’s July 25, 2012 letter. The Tribunal’s letters to the applicants have not been returned as undeliverable.

5In the circumstances, the applicants are deemed to have abandoned their respective Applications and Applications 2011-08936-I, 2011-08937-I, 2011-08938-I, 2011-08939-I are dismissed.