Velegjanin v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 912

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nikolai Velegjanin

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price

Date: July 10, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 912

Indexed as: Velegjanin v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nikolai Velegjanin, Applicant

Bakhtier Shakhnazarov, Paralegal

1This Application alleges that the respondent discriminated against the applicant in the provision of policing services because of the applicant’s ethnic origin, disability, creed, and sex, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application is scheduled to be heard on July 16 and 17, 2015.

2On July 7, 2015, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision in this matter denying the applicant’s May 2015 requests to have “Toronto Paramedic Services” added as a party to the Application and that the respondent be required to produce certain documents. The Interim Decision also directed that the applicant’s request for 10 summonses would be addressed at the upcoming hearing.

3On July 10, 2015, the applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the Tribunal reverse its rulings on the applicant’s May 2015 requests; adjourn the upcoming hearing in order to allow “Toronto Paramedic Services” to be added as a respondent; and assign a new adjudicator to hear the case.

4The applicant’s July 10, 2015 requests are denied.

5In effect, the applicant is asking the Tribunal to reconsider its interim rulings on his production request and his request to add a respondent to the Application. However, pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, a party may only request consideration of a final decision of the Tribunal, not an interim decision. In any event, there is no basis for the Tribunal to reconsider and reverse the rulings made in its July 7, 2015 Interim Decision. In his July 10, 2015 correspondence, the applicant repeats submissions that were before the Tribunal when it issued its interim decision and indicates that he disagrees with the decision. This is not a basis for reconsideration.

6The applicant’s request that the July 16 and 17, 2015 hearing be adjourned in order to allow the applicant to add a new party to the proceeding is also denied. Insofar as the decision not to add “Toronto Paramedic Services” as a party to the proceeding stands, there is no basis to adjourn the upcoming hearing.

7Finally, in his July 10, 2015 letter to the “Chair/Vice-chair” of the Tribunal, the applicant’s representative requests that a new adjudicator be assigned to this case. This request is also denied. I have been assigned by the Associate Chair to hear this case on its merits. The fact that the applicant disagrees with my interim ruling is not a basis upon which I might recuse myself from hearing this case.

8Although the applicant has not framed it this way, the applicant’s request that a new adjudicator be assigned to hear the case is tantamount to a request that I recuse myself for bias. Pursuant to the Tribunal’s Code of Conduct, and in keeping with the jurisprudence, determinations as to whether a particular adjudicator ought not to hear a given case based on allegations of conflict or bias are for the adjudicator him or herself to make. Accordingly, it is appropriate for me to determine this issue.

9According to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at p. 394, the test for whether an adjudicator ought to recuse him or herself based on allegations of bias is whether an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would think that it is more likely than not that the adjudicator, whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide the case fairly. In my view, the July 7, 2015 Interim Decision does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension that I will not decide this case fairly.

10The applicant seems to take exception to the fact that one of the reasons I declined to add the proposed respondent as a party to the proceeding was my finding that the facts alleged in the applicant’s Request to Add a Party and/or in the amended Application, if proven to be true, could not lead to a finding that “Toronto Paramedic Services” discriminated against the applicant because of his disability. The applicant submits that this finding “predicts” that the applicant’s claims against the respondent Toronto Police Services Board will “have the same fate” and that the hearing is a “waste of time”. There is no basis for this claim. My finding that the applicant’s allegations could not support a finding of discrimination by “Toronto Paramedic Services” does not reflect any predetermination of the allegations against the Toronto Police Services Board. The allegations in the Application will be determined on their merits based on the evidence and the arguments presented at the hearing. Nor is there any merit to the applicant’s submission that the Tribunal “makes it clear” that the police officers’ testimony will be preferred over that of the applicant because they are “public servants” and the applicant is a “layman”.

11The hearing will proceed as scheduled on July 16 and 17, 2015.