David Gourlay

The applicant, a Black African Canadian, alleged discrimination and reprisal under the Human Rights Code after being stopped and questioned by two police officers shortly after a nearby robbery.

The officers stopped the applicant because he matched the general description of the fleeing suspects and was in the vicinity.

During the stop, an officer asked the applicant about his place of birth and commented on his accent while completing a Field Information Report.

The Tribunal found that the stop was based on valid, non-discriminatory reasons and that the questioning did not violate the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a fourth adjournment of the hearing dates due to ongoing medical issues, including fibromyalgia and the after-effects of an assault, as well as his responsibilities as a caregiver for his parents.

The respondent consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the events at issue occurred over four years ago and the applicant's circumstances were chronic with no indication they would improve by the requested adjourned dates.

The Tribunal emphasized the need for a timely resolution and the burden of further delay.

The applicant alleged that he was racially profiled by police when he was stopped, investigated at the roadside, and ultimately arrested for criminal harassment.

He further alleged the arrest was a reprisal for a previous human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that the police had non-discriminatory reasons for the stop and investigation, including the applicant's driving, the presence of young passengers late at night, and the discovery that the applicant was on the sex offender registry.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim, finding that the arrest was a means to continue the investigation at the police station to ensure the well-being of the children, rather than retaliation for asserting human rights.

The applicant alleged that Toronto Police Service officers discriminated against him on the basis of race during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment.

He claimed the officers assaulted him and made discriminatory comments.

After the applicant presented his evidence at the hearing on the merits, the respondents moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable prospect the applicant could prove a link between the alleged assault and his race, and found his testimony regarding the discriminatory comments to be not credible.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of three scheduled hearing dates due to the hospitalization of his parents and the worsening of his own medical condition.

The respondent consented to adjourning the first date but objected to the remaining two, noting the matter had already been adjourned twice.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment of all three dates, finding that proceeding with the remaining two dates would not expedite the completion of the hearing given the Tribunal's schedule, and acknowledging the extenuating circumstances affecting the applicant's health.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an order that communications between the applicant and its counsel be in writing, except during hearings or other Tribunal proceedings.

The applicant and the individual respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the order on consent.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because he was out of the country attending to his father, who had suffered a massive heart attack.

The respondents did not oppose the request but noted the applicant had failed to file required documents.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the family medical emergency constituted exceptional circumstances, and directed the applicant to file his documents by a new deadline.

During a hearing, the respondents brought a motion to dismiss the portion of the application relating to a January 2009 assault and the subsequent police investigation.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations were true, there was no evidence linking the respondents' conduct to the applicant's race or ethnic origin.

The Tribunal dismissed that portion of the application, as well as the reprisal allegations, for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The hearing was scheduled to continue regarding a separate interaction with a specific police officer.

The applicant, a restaurant owner of Somali origin, alleged that a parking enforcement officer targeted him and his patrons by issuing parking tickets and making racist comments.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because many of the allegations related to events that occurred more than a year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the period from 2002 to 2005, finding they were not part of a series of incidents with the later events and that there was no good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day oral hearing to hear evidence regarding the alleged discriminatory comments made in 2009 and 2010.

The respondents requested the dismissal of parts of a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police as untimely, and sought an order for the production of a document.

The Tribunal found that the untimely allegations were discrete incidents not forming a series with the timely ones, and the applicant's explanation for the delay did not establish good faith.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce any relevant Landlord and Tenant Board decision regarding one of the timely incidents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on various grounds.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal waited 35 minutes before proceeding in the applicant's absence.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed 14 separate human rights applications against various respondents, alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal held a joint summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the applications, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate good faith for the delay or failed to plead facts that could reasonably lead to a finding of discrimination.

Portions of the applications against Ryerson University, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and Metroland were permitted to proceed, with the applicant ordered to provide further particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling and harassment by police officers.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through a complaint under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the police investigation framed the issues narrowly and did not consider human rights principles or allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by police officers who allegedly dismissed her reports of tampering based on a perception that she had a mental illness.

The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with through a Police Services Act complaint.

The Tribunal found that the prior police investigation and subsequent review by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services constituted a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application.

The application was dismissed.