William Fuhgeh v. Ottawa Police Services Board and Francois Perron, 2012 HRTO 2330

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Fuhgeh

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board and Francois Perron

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: December 12, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2330

Indexed as: Fuhgeh v. Ottawa Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

William Fuhgeh, Applicant

Self-represented

Ottawa Police Services Board and Francois Perron, Respondents

David Patacairk, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin citizenship and ethnic origin.

2The applicant alleges that he was stopped by the personal respondent police officer while he was driving for reasons related to the grounds he has pleaded. The respondents contend that the applicant was stopped because he was travelling in excess of the speed limit by over 40 km/h. The applicant denies speeding.

3The respondents submit that the Application should be deferred until the conclusion of the Applicant's ongoing proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice which seeks to overturn the fine levied upon the applicant as a result of his alleged speeding.

4Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on the facts or law.

5Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

6In this case there is a provincial offences proceeding before the Courts involving the applicant and arising out of the same circumstances that gave rise to the Application. While the proceedings before the Court may not directly raise the Code, it would appear that there is a significant overlap between the issues that are currently before the Court and the issues that the Tribunal would likely deal with in considering the Application.

7In these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer further consideration of the Application. 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 on before the Tribunal after the provincial offences proceeding has concluded.

8I am not seized.