Vaney v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 154

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Natasha Vaney Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Mark Tracey, Christopher Mobbs, Adrienne Gilvesy, Brian Doyle, Roy Foster and Richard Slater Respondents

And Between:

Natasha Vaney Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Peter Lennox, Mark Tracey, Scott Slater, Marisa Hamilton and Debra Hough Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: January 29, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 154 Indexed as: Vaney v. Toronto Police Services Board

1These are two Applications filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The respondents have requested, amongst other things, that the Applications be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, on the basis that proceedings under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.38 (“PSA”), have appropriately dealt with the substance of the Applications. In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued on April 30, 2012 the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be held to hear, amongst other matters, the respondents’ request.

3In a further CAD issued on June 13, 2012, the parties were advised that the issue of the application of section 45.1 in the context of the PSA is a significant one and was before the Tribunal in three Applications: Claybourn v. Toronto Police Service, Leong v. Peel Regional Police Services Board, and de Lottinville v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services (The “PSA Applications”) and that the Tribunal would hold these Applications in abeyance pending the release of a Decision on the PSA Applications. The Tribunal convened a three person panel to hear argument of the parties and a number of interveners in the PSA Applications and reserved its decision.

4On November 19, 2012 the panel issued a CAD to the parties in the PSA Applications advising them it would await the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Penner v. Niagara Regional Police Services Board (“Penner”) before making its decision, as it may have an impact on the issues in this case. Penner was argued on January 11, 2012 and remains on reserve at the Supreme Court.

5The applicant has written the Tribunal and requested that a hearing date be scheduled to hear the parties’ submissions on the preliminary issues regardless of the outcome in the PSA Applications. The applicant states that holding her Applications in abeyance has caused unacceptable delay and prejudice to her as “she suffers daily from the effects of her disabilities and medical conditions.” The applicant provided no details of these concerns.

6In my view it is appropriate to continue to hold these Applications in abeyance pending the release of the decision in the PSA Applications. The Tribunal is granted broad powers to control its processes by the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure The Tribunal’s Rules are to be interpreted in a way that provides the parties the opportunity for the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of the matters before it. The adjudication of the applications before it also requires the expenditure of significant private and public resources. In interpreting its Rules, the Tribunal has to consider the impact on the Tribunal’s as well as the parties’ resources when managing its processes. I note that there are a number of other Applications which have been held in abeyance pending the release the panel’s Decision in the PSA case.

7In my view, the Tribunal’s powers include the authority to hold a case in abeyance pending the release of a Tribunal Decision dealing with the precisely the same issues. This is particularly so when the Tribunal has invoked its authority to strike a panel of Members to consider an issue of significant importance to the community of parties that come before it.

8As indicated above, the preliminary issues raised in this case are precisely the same as those the Tribunal is considering in the PSA case. In that case the Tribunal invited interventions from various interested parties and stakeholder groups. These included several legal aid clinics, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, all of whom participated in the proceeding and made submissions on these issues. The Decision of the Tribunal on these issues may have a significant impact on the resolution of these Applications. As previously indicated, the Tribunal has held a number of these cases in abeyance. The delay in the release of the Tribunal’s decision (as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Penner) is unfortunate and unanticipated however in my view the applicant has not provided any sufficient reason to depart from the Tribunal’s approach in managing the cases where this issue has arisen.

9These Applications will continue to be held in abeyance pending the release of the Tribunal’s decision in the PSA case.

10I am not seized.