Gawain Coley v. Toronto Police Service, 2013 HRTO 301

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Gawain Coley Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Service Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: February 22, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 301 Indexed as: Coley v. Toronto Police Service

Written Submissions

Gawain Coley, Applicant Self-represented

1The applicant filed this Application on December 12, 2012, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to services, goods and facilities because of race, colour and ethnic origin.

2The applicant alleges that on December 11, 2011 he was brutally beaten by police officers with the respondent police service and that he was wrongfully charged with assault.

3On December 10, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application indicating that some information was missing from the applicant's forms. The Tribunal also issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") on the basis that that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination and because a review of the Application narrative did not identify the specific acts of reprisal within the meaning of the Code.

4The applicant wrote to the Tribunal on February 10, 2013 stating that he believed he was beaten because he is a Black man and that the police later charged him with assault as reprisal for his previous human rights case. The applicant indicates that it was only some months after the incident that a specialist provided a concrete diagnosis of the fracture he allegedly suffered because of the police beating. The applicant requests that this Application be deferred until after the criminal trial scheduled for April 3, 2013 with respect to the assault charges.

5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage before it is delivered to a respondent if it is "plain and obvious" on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. This includes a decision to dismiss for delay: Battaglia v. Maplehurst Correctional Complex, 2009 HRTO 1167. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction in respect of the application.

6It appears that the applicant attempted to file this Application within the Code's timeline because, based on the documentation in the Tribunal's file, the applicant emailed the Application to the Tribunal on December 11, 2012 at 17:00:54.

7I find that it is not plain and obvious that an argument under section 34(2) would be unsuccessful with respect to good faith and prejudice.

8Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application. The Application, the NOID and the applicant's submissions and the accompanying documentation will be delivered to the respondent.

Directions

9The Tribunal directs as follows:

i. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application;

ii. Along with this Interim Decision, the Tribunal will deliver a Notice of Application, a copy of the NOID and the applicant's correspondence to the respondent; and

iii. The respondent is required to file its Response (Form 2) to the Application no later than 35 days after the Tribunal sends a copy of this Interim Decision and the accompanying documents. In the Response, the respondent is directed to indicate a) its position with respect to the applicant's request that this Application be deferred until after the criminal trial and b) whether or not it is willing to participate in mediation.

10I am not seized.