Tomasz Raba v. Toronto Police 11 Division and David Griffiths, 2014 HRTO 1228

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tomasz Raba

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police 11 Division and David Griffiths

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: August 19, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1228

Indexed as: Raba v. Toronto Police 11 Division

APPEARANCES

Tomasz Raba, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Police 11 Division and David Griffiths, Respondents

David Tortell, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to police services because of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, creed, gender expression, and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). However, in the narrative, the applicant self-identifies as a Polish-Canadian and says that this was the basis for the alleged discrimination.

2The background to this Application is conflict between the applicant and his former landlords and an agent of the landlords. This conflict has resulted in several interventions by the police and the courts. The allegations in the Application concern the arrest of the applicant by the personal respondent, who is a police officer. The applicant alleges that the arrest was a false and improper arrest and that he was treated very badly in the course of the arrest and detainment. These events about all of this that are described in the Application occurred in September and October 2012.

3Section 34 of the Code provides:

34. (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

4The Application was filed on December 31, 2013 which was more than one year after the alleged events in September and October 2012.

5In written communications after the Application was filed, the applicant mentioned an incident in February 2014 when the police allegedly refused to assist him after an assault. This incident occurred after the Application was filed.

6In a Request for Order During Proceedings filed by the respondents in June 2014, the respondents submitted that the Application should be dismissed under section 45.1 on the grounds that a proceeding before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board had appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

7In a Case Assessment Direction dated June 3, 2014, the Tribunal directed that a telephone conference call hearing be held to deal with the following issues:

1. Was the delay in filing the original Application incurred in good faith and would the respondents be prejudiced by the delay?

2. Should the applicant be permitted to amend the original Application to include the alleged event in February 2014, or should he be required to file a new Application about that alleged event?

3. Did the decisions of the Criminal Injuries Board appropriately deal with the substance of the Application?

8After that Case Assessment Direction, the applicant sent a number of written communications. These included requests for disclosure of documents and records, an objection to a telephone conference call hearing as opposed to an oral hearing, objections to the disclosure of documents and records by the respondents, objections to objections by the respondents about matters raised by the applicant, allegations of bad faith and improper behaviour or decisions on the part of the Tribunal.

9In a series of Case Assessment Directions, the applicant was advised that he could raise any concerns about the process at the scheduled telephone conference call hearing. His request for an in-person hearing was denied, and he was advised that the requests for disclosure were premature since the Tribunal first had to determine if it has jurisdiction to deal with the Application.

10The telephone conference call hearing was scheduled for August 8, 2014.

11On July 23, 2014, the applicant sent an email asking that the hearing be adjourned as he would be unavailable for the month of August. The adjournment request was denied because the applicant only had be available by telephone.

12On July 28, 2014, the applicant submitted a document that he called a “Fresh As Amended” Application. It named additional respondents, provided additional allegations relating to the ongoing conflict with his former landlords and their agent, his dealings with the police, and his interactions with the court system. On August 7, 20014, the day before the telephone conference call hearing, the respondents filed an Request for Order During Proceedings asking, among other things, that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant. On the same day, the applicant sent an email stating that he was asking that I recuse myself from the hearing because of bias. The Tribunal was also informed that the applicant had appeared at the court offices seeking a judicial order relating to the hearing.

13On August 8, the applicant appeared on the telephone conference call hearing at the scheduled time, as did counsel for the respondents. The applicant advised that he was content to have the hearing proceed on the issues originally identified in the June 3, 2014 Case Assessment Direction. He confirmed that he was not seeking to have me recuse myself.

Impact of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

14To deal first with the respondent’s suggestion that the decision of the Criminal Injuries Board appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application, I am satisfied that it did not. Although that decision involved allegations by the applicant that are similar to those set out in the Application, the Criminal Injuries Board did not consider the substance of the Application to the Board because the Board found that there was no criminal act that could attract compensation.

Was there a “series of incidents”?

15All the allegations in the Application filed with the Tribunal relate to matters that happened more than one year before the Application was filed. The applicant suggests that there were other later events that should be seen as a series of events for the purpose of section 34(2), set out above.

16At the time of the June 3, 2014 Case Assessment Direction that directed the August 8, 2014 telephone conference call hearing, the only alleged event that had been identified by the applicant apart from the events in September and October 2012, was an incident in February 2014, when he says that he was attacked by the landlords’ agent and the police failed to respond. Since the time of the June 3, 2014, the applicant has filed additional communications that indicate that he had ongoing regular contact with the police after the events in September and October 2012. At the hearing he said that he had weekly contact. At the hearing, the applicant indicated that he had weekly contact with the police, and that many of these contacts were with the personal respondent.

17At the hearing the applicant said that he was not prepared to address these issues and whether they were part of an alleged series of events following the alleged events in September and October 2012. He said he was only prepared to address the February 2014 incident.

18The original Application deals with allegations about the applicant's interactions with the police and the personal respondent relating to what he alleges was an improper or false arrest and improper treatment while in detention. These allegations are quite different than an allegation that the police refused to respond to an alleged assault in February 2014. In addition, there is a gap of more than one year between the alleged events in September and October 2012 and the alleged incident in February 2014. The Tribunal has held that in general there must be a gap of less than one year between alleged incidents if they are to be considered a series of incidents for the purpose of section 34(2).

19I find that for the purposes of section 34(2), the alleged incident in February 2014 is not part of a series of incidents that is connected with the alleged events in September and October 2012. The applicant may file a new Application that includes the allegations about the incident in February 2014.

Is there a good faith explanation for the delay?

20At the hearing the applicant advised that there is a good faith explanation for the delay. He said that he was “paralysed” for much of the year following the events in September and October 2012 and subsequently. He indicated that this happened when he was assaulted by the landlords’ agent. He indicated that this was not necessarily a complete paralysis but it affected his ability to communicate in writing and limited his ability to get around. It was noted that the applicant had not previously mentioned this difficulty in any of his numerous communications about the various issues he has, including communications that have itemized his medical conditions.

21It was noted that the applicant seems to have been involved in a number of other proceedings in the time following the events in 2012, including various legal actions and applications with the Landlord and Tenant Board relating to the disputes with his landlords and the landlords agents. The applicant indicated that he received help with these proceedings. He did not explain why he was unable to get similar help so that he could file an Application with this Tribunal within one year of the events alleged in the Application.

22I find that the applicant has not provided a credible good faith explanation for the delay in filing the Application.

Decision

23The Application is dismissed on the grounds that it was not filed in accordance with section 34 of the Code.