Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Mafario Amicucci
Applicant
-and-
York Police Services Board, Chris Parsons, Mario Gentili and Guy Guindon
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Amicucci v. York Police Services Board
1A hearing into the merits of this matter was heard in Toronto on April 11 and 12, 2013, during which the evidentiary portion of the hearing was concluded. The hearing is scheduled to resume on July 11, 2013, for the purposes of making final oral submissions.
Withdrawal of the Application
2On July 1, 2013, the Tribunal received a Form 9 from the applicant in which he requests the withdrawal of his Application against all of the named respondents.
3Rule 10.5 states:
Where a Response to the Application has already been filed, an Application may be withdrawn only with permission of the Tribunal and upon such terms as the Tribunal may determine.
4On July 4, 2013, the Tribunal received a Form 11, in which the respondents request that the Tribunal impose terms on the withdrawal of the Application, including the return of the documents sent to the applicant during the course of the proceedings. The applicant indicates that he is willing to return such documents.
5Further, the respondents request that the Tribunal impose a condition that "the applicant will not raise any of the allegations raised in his Application and related HRTO filings in another Application before this Tribunal." I have considered this request and I find that it is not necessary for the Tribunal to impose such conditions for the following reasons. In this matter all of the evidence has been heard by the Tribunal and the remaining closing submissions would have taken less than half a day to conclude. In these circumstances, it would be an abuse of the Tribunal's process for the applicant to file a future application with respect to the allegations contained in this Application and Reply.
Order
6In these circumstances I order the following:
a. The Tribunal grants the applicant permission to withdraw the Application and the hearing is therefore cancelled; and
b. In accordance with paragraph 14(e) of Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 483, the applicant must either return the documents to the respondents' solicitors and/or destroy them and confirm in writing that he has done so within 14 days of the date of this Decision. If the respondents seek the return of the documents they must make arrangements to facilitate the return of the documents within seven days of the date of this Decision.
Clarification
7On June 4, 2013, and July 1, 2013, the applicant asked me to correct the statement at paragraph 4(g) of Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 242, issued on February 11, 2013, which states:
Forensic results of the letters sent to the applicant, his family and his solicitor which contain images of Nazi "death camps" which contain racist and anti-Semitic incidents. The applicant believes that these were in fact sent to him by one of the personal respondents. [emphasis added]
8The applicant states that he has never asserted that the respondents sent him these letters.
9I find that it is appropriate that I clarify that the Tribunal did not hear any oral evidence with respect to these letters.
10On October 3, 2012, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and stated:
As per the requirements of Rule 16.1 this is the list of documents in my possession:
Various threatening, racist and anti-Semitic letters sent by various family members of my ex-spouse aligned with the York Regional Police.
Numerous emails sent by various family members of my ex spouse. There are a plethora of emails and these people claim, as is my belief that they are sent in conjunction with various members of the York Regional Police.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of July, 2013.
"Signed by"
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair