HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michelle Boyce
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Glen Seddon and Julie Hillis
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Monika Chestnut
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Glen Seddon and Julie Hillis
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Boyce v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Michelle Boyce and Monika Chestnut, Applicants
Michelle Boyce
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Glen Seddon and Julie Hillis, Respondents
Marnie Bacher, Counsel
Introduction
1These two Applications arise out of a traffic stop on August 22, 2010. Michelle Boyce was the driver of the car and Monika Chestnut was a passenger. The two personal respondents were the police officers involved in the stop.
2The Applications allege that the applicants experienced discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability during the stop. In Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1673, the Tribunal determined that the two Applications are consolidated and will proceed together. The parties have not mutually agreed to try mediation.
3At the time of the traffic stop, the officers issued Summonses in regard to alleged offences under the Highway Traffic Act and the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. These matters are currently the subject of proceedings before the Court.
4The respondents have filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking the Tribunal to defer further consideration of the Applications until those proceedings have been resolved.
5The applicants oppose deferral. They argue that the issues in the proceedings before the Court are very different than the issues raised in the Application. They submit that the proceedings in Court will not address or resolve the human rights issues raised in the Application. They also advise that they have brought “several errors in law” to the attention of the presiding judge which may require consideration “at the appeal level”. In this event, it could be a long time before the Court proceedings are resolved.
Conclusions
6According to the applicants, the proceeding before the Court will not address the human rights issues that are the substance of the Application. This would be a reason why it might be appropriate for the Tribunal to proceed with the Application and not defer. However, at such time as the Tribunal considers the merits of the Application, an important issue will obviously be a determination of what happened during the traffic stop. An important issue related to this is whether the summonses that were issued by the police officers were correctly and lawfully issued. This is clearly an issue that is central to the proceedings currently before the Court.
7In my view it would not be appropriate for this Tribunal to proceed with a hearing which will require the Tribunal to make factual findings about matters that are currently before the Courts and about which the Court may also make factual findings.
8For these reasons, I conclude that it is appropriate to defer further considerations of these Applications until the proceedings before the Court have been resolved.
Decision
9These Applications are deferred until the proceedings before the Court have been resolved.
10The procedure by which an Application may be brought back on after it has been deferred is set out in Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of October, 2012.
“Signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair