HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Emmanuel Diafwila Applicant
-and-
Ottawa Police Services Board Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Date: July 22, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1072
Indexed as: Diafwila v. Ottawa Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Emmanuel Diafwila, Applicant
Anne Levesque, Counsel
Ottawa Police Services Board, Respondent
Jeremy Wright, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On July 24, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application and invited the parties to file submissions. Both parties consented to the deferral of the Application.
3On August 10, 2012, the Tribunal directed the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of a disciplinary hearing which was convened pursuant to the Police Services Act (the “PSA”).
4On April 4, 2014, the applicant filed a Request to reactivate the Application on the basis that the other proceeding is concluded. The disciplinary hearing was heard by a Hearing Officer who issued a Decision on January 18, 2013 in favour of the respondent. The applicant filed an appeal of the Decision to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (the “OCPC”). On March 5, 2014, the OCPC allowed the applicant’s appeal.
5In its response to the Request to reactivate, the respondent advised that it had initiated an appeal of the OCPC’s Decision and attached its Notice of Appeal to the Divisional Court. The respondent sought the continued deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of this appeal.
6On April 15, 2014, the Registrar sent an email to the applicant’s counsel and directed the applicant to respond to the respondent’s request to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the appeal filed at Divisional Court. As of this date no submissions have been received from the applicant.
DECISION
7The 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 (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The Tribunal must 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.
8Applying these principles to this case, I find that it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the appeal. In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the other proceeding. I find that it is appropriate for the proceeding which was commenced under the PSA, which includes rights of appeal, to be finally concluded before the Tribunal reactivates this Application.
ORDER
9The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the appeal filed at Divisional Court.
10The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rule 14 which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an Application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of July, 2014.
« Signed by »
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair