HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Suresh Permaul
Applicant
- and-
Toronto Police Services Board, Simon Fraser, Walid Osman, Amy Patterson, and William Blair
Respondents
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Permaul v. Toronto Police Services Board
wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Suresh Permaul, Applicant ) Rosalie Clark, Student-at-Law
Toronto Police Services Board, Simon ) Glenn K. L. Chu, Counsel
Fraser, Walid Osman, Amy Patterson, )
and William Blair, Respondents )
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 in the provision of goods and services on the basis of ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race. This Interim Decision deals with a Request for an Order During Proceeding (“Request”) file by the Applicant and other matters related to the orderly adjudication of this Application.
2The applicant filed a Request to remove Alan Yan, Kenneth Fung, and Michael Marcinkowski from the Application. The respondents have consented to the Request. The Request is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly.
Other Matters
3In their Response the respondents asked that the Application be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the subject matter of the Application had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. On April 2, 2012 the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application on that basis and invited the parties’ submissions. In his Reply the applicant has addressed the issue.
4As the parties may be aware there are a number of other cases before the Tribunal raising the same issues as has been raised here in the respondents’ Response to the Application. The Tribunal has been holding these matters in abeyance pending the release of the Tribunal’s Decisions in Shallow v. Toronto Police Services Board; 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.
5If either party objects to this case being held in abeyance pending the release of the Tribunal’s Decisions in the above matters, they will deliver and file same within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision, failing which this case will not be processed further until such time as these other matters have been determined. The parties will be given an opportunity to make submissions on the effect of the Tribunal’s Decisions in the above cited cases.
6I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of May, 2012.
”signed by”__________
David Muir
Vice-chair