J.Q. v. Cornwall Community Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 180

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

J.Q. Applicant

-and-

Cornwall Community Police Services Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: February 9, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 180 Indexed as: J.Q. v. Cornwall Community Police Services Board

INTRODUCTION

1This Interim Decision confirms that this Application was deferred by the Tribunal after hearing submissions from the parties at the outset of a teleconference hearing on January 14, 2016.

2A summary hearing in this matter was scheduled for January 14, 2016, by teleconference. In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated January 7, 2016, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request for a “postponement” of the summary hearing based on the information before the Tribunal at that point in time.

3After the Tribunal’s January 7, 2016 CAD was issued, the Tribunal received further correspondence from both parties on January 7, and from the applicant on January 11, 2016. It appears from the parties’ correspondence that the applicant has been charged with criminal harassment by the Ontario Provincial Police, which is scheduled to be heard on June 23, 2016.

4In his further correspondence, the applicant submitted that all of the issues in the Application are now in “Criminal Court”. The applicant listed ten separate issues. He also submitted that the Judge in the criminal proceeding issued a publication ban, and that he has been told that he cannot discuss his case with anyone outside of Court.

5In its correspondence, the respondent submitted, among other things, that a publication ban of the testimony in the criminal harassment charge does not prevent the summary hearing from going forward, as there is no need for the applicant to disclose testimony given in the criminal harassment charge. The respondent also submitted that the issue of the criminal harassment charge is not a ground upon which discrimination has been claimed by the applicant. The respondent submitted that the summary hearing should proceed as scheduled.

DEFERRAL

6At the outset of the teleconference hearing on January 14, 2016, the applicant confirmed that he was effectively asking that the Application be deferred until after the proceeding involving his criminal harassment charge is completed.

7The respondent maintained that the summary hearing should proceed. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s criminal court matter is unrelated to the Application, and, although there may be similarities between the applicant’s allegations in the Application that he was harassed, and his criminal harassment charge, there is no reason for a deferral of the Application. The respondent submitted that there is no reason why the applicant would not be able to explain to the Tribunal why the Application should proceed and not be summarily dismissed.

8In reply, the applicant referred to various issues that are raised in the Application, and essentially submitted that all of these issues are also raised in the criminal proceeding. I note that in his correspondence received January 11, 2016, the applicant listed ten separate issues that he submitted are raised in both his Application and the criminal proceeding, including the allegations in his Application that he was harassed, stalked and threatened by individuals who, I understand, he has been charged with harassing. The applicant also submitted that a respondent officer referred to in his Application is expected to testify in the criminal proceeding.

9The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (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.

10However, the Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing proceeding based on overlapping facts and issues. Some 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.

11As the criminal charge appears to arise out of the same factual matrix that forms the substance of this Application, there is a potential for overlap between the two proceedings. This raises the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact if the Application runs concurrently with the criminal proceeding. In these circumstances, the Tribunal determined that deferral was the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. Accordingly, the Application was deferred pending the conclusion of the proceeding involving the applicant’s criminal harassment charge. The Tribunal did not hear any submissions on the issue of reasonable prospect of success and the teleconference hearing was adjourned.

12While the applicant submitted that a publication ban was issued in the criminal proceeding, the Tribunal was not provided with a copy of any publication ban, and it is by no means clear if there is any publication ban that might extend to this proceeding. In the circumstances, out of an abundance of caution, the applicant’s name is anonymized in this Interim Decision only. The issue of any publication ban and its scope can be addressed if and when this matter continues.

13The Tribunal also draws the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which provide that, where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Forms can be found on its website at www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto.