Meynell v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 1175

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julian Meynell Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: September 7, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1175 Indexed as: Meynell v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Julian Meynell, Applicant Erin Hallock, Counsel

Toronto Police Services Board, Respondent Michele Brady, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the issue of whether the Tribunal should defer the Application pending completion of a review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (“OIPRD”).

2The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) requesting that the Tribunal defer the Application pending conclusion of the complaint made by the applicant with the OIPRD. In the RFOP, the respondent noted that the applicant stated in his Application that the outcome of the investigation was unknown. The respondent submits that the Application should be deferred because the facts between it and the OIPRD proceeding overlap, the OIPRD is authorized by the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended (“PSA”), to determine issues relating to officer misconduct, the orderly administration of justice favours deferral, and there would be no prejudice to the applicant.

3The applicant submits that the OIPRD issued a decision, and that he has requested a review of that decision. He opposes deferral. He submits that deferral is not appropriate because the subject matter, the nature of the proceedings, the remedies requested in the Application, and the status of the proceedings do not favour deferral. He submits that the respondent will not be prejudiced. He cites a number of Tribunal decisions which decline to defer an application where there is an ongoing OIPRD proceeding.

analysis

4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (see section 45 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) and Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

5In Stanley v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 1566, at para. 12, the adjudicator noted that the statutory privilege and confidentiality provisions of the PSA, specifically subsections 26(11), 83(7)-(8) and section 95, make materials from the OIPRD proceeding inadmissible before the Tribunal. Despite the overlap in facts between the two proceedings, the adjudicator declined to order deferral. See also White v. Durham Regional Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 721 at paras. 6 and 7. See also commentary about the statutory privilege and confidentiality provisions of the PSA in McWilliam v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 934 at paras. 10-13 and 22.

6I apply the reasoning in Stanley and find that it is not appropriate to defer this Application.

7Accordingly, the respondent’s request for the Tribunal to defer the Application is denied. The respondent is directed to file a Response with the Tribunal within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

8I am not seized with this matter.