HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michelle Boyce
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Glen Seddon and Julie Hills
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Monika Chestnut
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Glen Seddon and Julie Hills
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: March 26, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 517 Indexed as: Boyce v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Michelle Boyce and Monika Chestnut, Applicants
Michelle Boyce
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Glen Seddon and Julie Hills, Respondents
Marnie Bacher, Counsel
1These a are Applications 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 disability and sexual orientation.
2The applicants allege they experienced discrimination during a traffic stop conducted by the individual respondents, who are police officers. In an earlier Interim Decision in these matters, 2012 HRTO 1917, the Tribunal deferred the Applications pending the conclusion of Court proceedings regarding alleged offences under the Highway Traffic Act and the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.
3On February 25, 2013, the applicants filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding (the “Request”) in which they seek to reactivate the deferred Applications. The applicants submitted that the matter before the Provincial Court has come to a close.
4On March 7, 2013, the respondents filed a Response to a Request for Order, in which they oppose reactivation of the Applications. The respondents submitted that the matter before the Provincial Court has not come to a close because the applicants have appealed the decision of the trial judge who found the applicants guilty of the charges. Accordingly, the respondents submitted that the proceedings before the Court are still ongoing; therefore, the Applications should not be reactivated.
Decision
5The Tribunal deferred the Applications because both the Court and the Tribunal would have to determine what occurred during the traffic stop and determine the validity of the summonses issued by the individual respondents, in the respective proceedings. The Tribunal found that it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to proceed with a hearing in which it would make factual findings regarding matters currently before the Courts. The applicants have appealed the trial judgement; therefore the Court proceeding is not concluded and the factual issues have not been finally determined. Consequently, the situation has not really changed and in my view it continues to be inappropriate for the Tribunal to proceeding with the Applications when key factual issues remain before the Court.
Order
6The Request to reactivate the Applications is denied. The applicants may renew their Request once the matter before the Court has been finally determined.
7The procedure by which an Application may be reactivated is set out in Rule 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of March, 2013.
“Signed by”
Douglas Sanderson Vice-chair