Vishvander Sood v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Gregory Hutton, Ron Hayes and Mike Vorshuk, 2013 HRTO 295

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Vishvander Sood Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Gregory Hutton, Ron Hayes and Mike Vorshuk Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: February 21, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 295 Indexed as: Sood v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

1These are two transitional Applications filed on June 25, 2009, under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal. The underlying complaints were filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on June 24, 2006, and October 16, 2006.

2The claims advanced in these Applications are essentially that two separate interactions with the Ontario Provincial Police and various of its officers in January and May 2006 were reprisals for an earlier human rights complaint which the applicant had filed.

3In addition to filing complaints with the Commission arising out of these two incidents, the applicant also commenced a civil action arising out of the same two incidents in June 2006. The applicant further commenced a second civil action in May 2007 alleging a breach of the Charter by various individual police officers and others including the respondents in these matters. Although broader than the two Applications here, this second civil action includes the allegations underlying these Applications.

4In July 2009, the respondents requested that the Applications before this Tribunal be deferred pending the conclusion of the related civil proceedings. This request was granted on consent of all parties on October 15, 2009.

5The Tribunal requested a status update on November 18, 2010. In response, the applicant requested that the Applications before this Tribunal be processed for hearing. The Tribunal requested the parties’ submissions on whether or not it was appropriate that these Applications continue to be deferred.

6By Interim Decision dated February 9, 2011 (2011 HRTO 275), having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal concluded that it was appropriate that these Applications continue to be deferred pending the conclusion of the related civil proceedings.

7On October 25, 2011, the Tribunal followed up with the parties to seek an update on the status of the civil proceedings. By this letter, the applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal in regard to the status of the civil proceedings within 30 days, and specifically to advise whether the civil proceedings were concluded – in which case he was to attach a copy of any decision issued by the court. The applicant was advised that if he failed to do so, his Applications may be dismissed as abandoned.

8The applicant responded by e-mail correspondence dated November 18, 2011, to indicate that the civil proceedings had been set down for trial in Windsor commencing on May 15, 2012 and expected to last until July 15, 2012.

9Having not heard from the applicant following the time when the trial in the civil proceedings was to have been concluded, the Tribunal followed up once again with the parties on December 6, 2012 to seek an update on the status of the civil proceedings. By this letter, the applicant once again was directed to advise the Tribunal in regard to the status of the civil proceedings within 30 days, and specifically to advise whether the civil proceedings were concluded and to provide a copy of any decision issued by the court. Further, the applicant once again was advised that if he failed to do so, his Applications may be dismissed as abandoned.

10It now has been over two and a half months since the date of the Tribunal’s letter to the parties and direction to the applicant, and over one and a half months beyond the time when the applicant was to have responded and provided an update.

11The Applications before this Tribunal are legal proceedings commenced by the applicant which have been outstanding for some considerable time. The applicant has an obligation to remain actively engaged in the legal process and to respond in a timely manner to the Tribunal’s directions. The applicant has failed to do so, and has been warned that his failure to respond may result in the dismissal of his Applications as abandoned.

12In all of the circumstances, it is my view that it is appropriate to dismiss these Applications as abandoned.