Williams v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 1589

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Williams

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Mark Saunders

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: November 24, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1589 Indexed as: Williams v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Christopher Williams, Applicant Richard Miller, Counsel

Toronto Police Services Board and Mark Saunders, Respondents Brennagh Smith, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether or not to order the respondents to file a complete Response to the Application.

2On August 14, 2015, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to services.

3On October 1, 2015, the respondents filed a Response, which denied the allegations of discrimination, but did not respond to each allegation set out in the Application or include any additional facts and allegations which the respondents are relying on. The respondents also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), which requested that the Application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it was filed outside the one-year time limit in s. 34(1) of the Code.

4On October 28, 2015, the applicant filed an RFOP, which requested that the respondents be ordered to file a complete Response to the applicant’s factual allegations, as required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

5On November 10, 2015, the respondents filed a Response to the applicant’s RFOP, which opposed his request on the basis that the Tribunal has the flexibility to consider a jurisdictional issue without requiring the respondents to file a complete Response.

6Rule 8.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides:

A complete Response must provide the information requested in each section of the Form 2, respond to each allegation set out in the Application and must also include any additional facts and allegations on which the Respondent relies. Where a Respondent alleges the issues in dispute in the Application are the subject of:

a) a full and final signed release between the parties;

b) a civil court proceeding requesting a remedy based on the alleged human rights infringement; or

c) a complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission; or

d) exclusive federal jurisdiction,

the Respondent need not respond to the allegations in the Application, but must attach a copy of the applicable release, or statement of claim or court decision, or complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission or its decision and must include with the Response complete argument in support of its position that the Application should be dismissed. Notwithstanding anything else in Rule 8.2, the Tribunal may direct a Respondent to file a complete Response where the Tribunal considers it appropriate.

7Rule A4.2 of the Social Justice Tribunals Ontario Common Rules also provides:

The tribunal may vary or waive the application of any rule or procedure, on its own initiative or on the request of a party, except where to do so is prohibited by legislation or a specific rule.

8In view of Rule A4.2, I agree with the respondents that the Tribunal has the flexibility to consider a jurisdictional issue such as timeliness without requiring the respondents to file a complete Response. However, in the case at hand, it is my view that a complete Response may assist the Tribunal in determining how to deal with the jurisdiction issue that the respondents have raised. As such, I see no reason to vary the application of Rule 8.2 which requires the respondents to file a complete Response.

9It would be helpful to the Tribunal if the respondents specify in the Response whether the police officers have any independent recollection of stopping the applicant on April 6, 2010.

10The Tribunal therefore makes the following orders and directions:

1. By no later than two weeks from the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents shall file a complete Response, which responds to each allegation set out in the Application, and includes any additional facts and allegations which the respondents are relying on.

2. By no later than four weeks from the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant shall file a Reply to the Response and a Response to the respondents’ RFOP.

11I am not seized of this matter.