HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sedat Yaylacam
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Service
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Yaylacam v. Toronto Police Service
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Sedat Yaylacam, Applicant
Bakhtier Shakhnazarov, Representative
Introduction
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 services because of ethnic origin, sex and marital status. The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against and harassed during the course of his arrest. In the Application the applicant states that his criminal trial is scheduled on May 30 and 31, 2013. The Tribunal has denied the applicant’s Request to expedite the Application.
2On March 19, 2013, the Tribunal sent to the parties a Notice of Intent to Defer (“NOID”) seeking submissions on whether the Application should be deferred pending the resolution of the criminal proceedings. Both parties have filed submissions in support of their respective positions.
3The applicant opposes deferral of the Application on the basis that a hearing should be convened by the Tribunal before the criminal proceeding because he believes that he will not have a fair trial because the officer and prosecutor assigned to his case are females.
4The respondent submits that the Application should be deferred because, on the face of it, the events and facts in the Application overlap and that these could lead to inconsistent findings in two different forums. The respondent also cites case law in support of its position.
DECISION
5Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. The 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.
6In Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-19:
Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.
Some of the factors that may be 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 type 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.
7In my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. There is some overlap in facts and issues between this Application and the criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the criminal proceeding is at an advanced stage and is scheduled for hearing at the end of May 2013. With respect to the applicant’s submissions opposing deferral, I find in fact that these submissions renew the applicant’s request to expedite the Application which has already been denied by the Tribunal.
ORDER
8The Application is deferred pending conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal after the criminal proceedings have concluded.
9I am not seized of this matter
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of May, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair