HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Joseph Briggs
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board and Benjamin Wester
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Briggs v. Toronto Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Joseph Briggs, Applicant ) Self-Represented
Toronto Police Services Board and ) Robert Baldwin, Counsel
Benjamin Wester, Respondents )
DECISION
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect services, goods and facilities on the basis of race, colour and ethnic origin and reprisal.
2The applicant alleges that on June 9, 2011, he was subjected to racial profiling during an unjustified stop and that his vehicle was illegally searched. The applicant further alleges that later as retaliation he was wrongfully charged by the individual respondent for providing false evidence and operating a motor vehicle without insurance.
3The respondents filed a Response on September 4, 2012 denying the allegations. The respondents allege that the individual respondent acted reasonably and that the applicant was properly charged. The respondents indicate that the charges are pending before the Court. The respondents request that the Application be deferred pending the completion of trial proceedings regarding the various charges against the applicant. In addition, the respondents request that the Application be dismissed as against the individual respondent because of concerns regarding the individual respondent being named in the Application outside of the Code’s one-year time limit.
4The applicant filed a Reply on December 5, 2012. The applicant refutes many of the respondents’ claims. The applicant notes that the charges are still before the courts and that he intends to dispute the charges. The applicant submits that there was no delay in filing the Application as against the individual respondent. The applicant clarified that the individual was identified in his original documentation and there was mix-up regarding the naming of the individual respondent because the wrong form was originally filed. The applicant notes that these matters were addressed with the Tribunal.
Individual Respondent
5Based on my review of the file, it appears that the applicant filed his Application on May 18, 2012, and his allegations pertain to events that occurred on and after June 9, 2011.
6The applicant’s original documentation filed with the Tribunal referenced the individual respondent on numerous occasions as the person whom the Application is filed against. The individual respondent is identified throughout Form 1 and is listed as a “contact” for the organizational respondent.
7It is apparent based on the applicant’s narrative and the contents of the Application Form 1 and Form 1-C that the applicant’s allegations have always related to the conduct of the individual respondent and that the individual respondent was identified in the documentation as a responding party. As such, I find the Application was filed against the individual respondent within the Code’s one-year time limit.
Deferral
8The respondents ask that the Application be deferred pending the completion of the court proceedings.
9The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of a party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an Application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.
10The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. The Tribunal will generally defer an application where the parties are engaged in other legal proceedings raising similar facts and issues, particularly where the other decision-maker has the authority to make determinations with respect to facts that parallel the Application: see Aganeh Estate v. Mental Health Care Penetanguishene, 2011 HRTO 2280.
11Some factors that have been identified as relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are: the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the types of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.
12In considering all of the circumstances in this case, it appears that it is appropriate to defer the Application pending completion of the court proceedings. The Tribunal has deferred applications where there are on-going court matters involving the parties. See Hadley v. J.A.C.S. Cartage, 2010 HRTO 516; G.G. v. Image Printing and Signs, 2010 HRTO 1953, and the cases cited therein at para. 10, and McVeety v. Glenile Electric Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1210.
13In the present case, the applicant is facing multiple charges and the individual respondent is directly involved in the alleged events giving rise to the charges and the allegations in the Application. As such, there is substantial overlap between the facts raised in the Application and those relevant to the charges against the applicant. Further, it appears that the court process is currently underway.
14Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that the Application is deferred pending the completion of the court process.
ORDER
15The respondents’ request to dismiss the Application as against the individual respondent on the basis of delay is denied.
16The Application is deferred. Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).
17I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of January, 2013.
“Signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair
CORRECTION
This decision incorrectly referred to the applicant facing criminal proceedings, instead of court proceedings under the Highway Traffic Act. This error has been corrected in the decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of March, 2013.
“Signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair