Bouragba v. Ottawa Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 100

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yassin Bouragba on behalf of Youssouf Bouragba Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board, Luc Grenier and Benjamin Albert Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: January 21, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 100 Indexed as: Bouragba v. Ottawa Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Yassin Bouragba on behalf of Youssouf Bouragba, Applicant Self-represented

Ottawa Police Services Board, Luc Grenier and Benjamin Albert, Respondents David Patacairk, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application on behalf of his brother (the claimant) alleging discrimination because of disability and creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that his brother was discriminated against during the course of his arrest and questioning by the respondents.

2In their Response, the respondents request that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of a criminal proceedings against the claimant.

3The applicant opposes deferral of the Application and submits that there is no overlap between the issues in the criminal proceeding and the Application.

DECISION

4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of a party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an Application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

5Some factors that have been identified as 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 types 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. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

6The Tribunal has deferred applications where there are ongoing criminal proceedings involving the parties, where the applicant or the respondent was the party who was criminally charged: Yaylacam v. Toronto Police Service, 2013 HRTO 752; Miller v. Bernard, 2010 HRTO 1488; Bernard v. London Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 1829; Hadley v. J.A.C.S. Cartage, 2010 HRTO 516; and Young v. Arbor Memorial Gardens, 2011 HRTO 425.

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. In particular, there is a substantial likelihood that the circumstances surrounding the claimant’s arrest and questioning will be an issue in the criminal proceeding, thus giving rise to the potential for conflicting findings if this Application were to proceed in parallel with the criminal proceeding. Furthermore, the criminal proceeding is at a more advanced stage than this Application. It is not perfectly clear how much more advanced the criminal proceeding is as compared to the Application. The respondents state that several appearances have already taken place in the criminal proceeding. Meanwhile, the applicant states that the criminal proceeding is commencing in January, 2016 due to the introduction of new material in that proceeding. In either case, the criminal proceeding is more advanced than this Application which is still in the initial processing stage at the Tribunal.

ORDER

8For the reasons set out above, the Application is deferred pending conclusion of the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the claimant.

9It should be noted that, where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

10In addition, the style of cause in this matter is corrected to properly identify the applicant as acting on behalf of the claimant rather than as his litigation guardian.

11I am not seized of this matter.