HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tariq Stanley
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Stanley v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Tariq Stanley, Applicant
Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent
Marnie Corbold, 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 goods, services and facilities because of race, colour and creed with respect to events that incurred at the East Detention Centre.
BACKGROUND
2The Application related to events that occurred on January 23, 2012. The applicant was charged with one count of assault and two counts of threatening bodily harm for the events that occurred on that day.
3On July 9, 2012, the applicant filed a Request to defer the Application which had two sentences in support of the Request. The applicant stated “Please defer application untiI end of ongoing criminal matter related to the claim.” And “ongoing related criminal matter-do not know if the other party consents to this request.”
4On July 18, 2012, the respondent filed a response in which it states that it took no position with respect to the Request to Defer.
5On July 24, 2012 in Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1444 (the “Interim Decision”), the Tribunal found that “the criminal charges appear to be related to the events of discrimination as described in the Application”. The Tribunal deferred the Application “until conclusion of the criminal proceeding against the applicant”.
6On May 8, 2012, the Tribunal issued to the parties a letter requesting that the applicant advise the Tribunal on the status of the deferred Application.
7On May 17, 2013 the applicant advised that the other proceeding was still continuing and that he did not expect it to conclude until the end of the year.
8On May 21, 2013, the Tribunal issued a letter to the parties confirming that the Application remained deferred.
9On November 7, 2013, the applicant made a Request to reactivate the Application on the basis that the other proceeding had concluded when the applicant pled guilty on September 13, 2013.
10On November 21, 2013, the respondent filed detailed submissions opposing the applicant’s Request to reactivate because it was not filed within 60 days of the other proceeding’s conclusion. The respondent states that the charges with respect to the events that occurred on January 23, 2012 concluded on September 4, 2012, when the applicant pled guilty to causing a disturbance. The respondent submits that the applicant’s guilty plea on September 13, 2013 is with respect to other pre-existing charges that had been laid against the applicant which are not related to the Application.
DECISION
11For the reasons that follow I find that it is appropriate to reactivate the Application.
12Rules 14.3 and 14.4 state:
14.3 Where a party wishes the Tribunal to proceed with an Application which has been deferred the request must be made in accordance with Rule 19.
14.4 Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.
13It appears that there were at least two ongoing criminal proceedings when the applicant made his Request to defer. However, neither party sought to clarify this issue at the time that the order was sought. I find that based on the language of the Interim Decision, that it is not clear that the Tribunal only deferred the Application pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings related to the events of January 23, 2012. Arguably, the pre-existing charges are related in the sense that this is the reason why the applicant was incarcerated at the East Detention Centre.
14Therefore, I find that the Request to reactivate is timely.
15Regardless, however, even if the Request to reactivate was untimely, I would have exercised my discretion to reactivate the Application.
16The factors that the Tribunal usually considers in exercising this discretion include, the length and the reason for the delay and whether the respondent has been prejudiced by the delay. See for example: Sadeghzadeh v. Gesco Limited Partnership, 2012 HRTO 1109.
17I find that based on the wording of the Interim Decision that it was not unreasonable for the applicant to believe that the Application had been deferred until the conclusion of all related criminal proceedings. This is a good explanation for the delay.
18In exercising its discretion the Tribunal should also consider the actions of the other parties to determine if they contributed to the delay in the Request to reactivate. In this case I have considered the actions of the respondent in this matter and that it did not dispute that the other proceeding was still on-going in May 2013, when the Tribunal sought clarification. If the respondent believed that the other proceeding had in fact been concluded in September 2012, then it should have raised the issue in May 2013. Instead the respondent remained silent and permitted the continued deferral of the Application.
19This would have been an appropriate case to exercise my discretion to permit the reactivation of the Application beyond the prescribed time.
ORDER
20The Application is reactivated and the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of December, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair