Fred Fisher

This is a costs endorsement following a successful constitutional application by the applicant against the Chief of Police, with no relief granted against the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB).

The applicant, self-represented, sought costs including fees and disbursements against both respondents.

The court declined to award costs against the TPSB due to the limited scope of relief sought against it and its role in assisting the court on a jurisdictional issue.

Against the Chief of Police, the court applied the two-part test from *Fong v. Chan* for awarding costs to self-represented litigants, requiring demonstration of time and effort doing lawyer's work and incurred opportunity cost by forgoing remunerative activity.

The applicant failed to demonstrate foregone remunerative activity, as his decision to pursue lower-paying part-time work predated the litigation and was a quality-of-life choice.

Therefore, no fees were awarded.

However, the court ordered the Chief of Police to pay the applicant's reasonable disbursements, as the applicant was successful in advancing constitutional rights in the public interest.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of a practice instituted by the Chief of Police requiring all individuals entering police headquarters to submit to a security search.

The applicant argued this violated his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, as it was a condition precedent to attending public meetings of the Toronto Police Services Board held in the building.

The court found that attending a public government meeting is protected expression and the searches infringed this right.

The court further held the infringement was not justified under s. 1 because the Chief of Police lacked statutory authority under the Occupiers' Liability Act or the Occupational Health and Safety Act to impose warrantless searches as a condition of entry to a public meeting.

A declaration was granted.

The applicant, an access parent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, mental health, and other grounds against his child's doctor (SM Medical Centre), the Toronto Health Unit, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

He alleged the doctor improperly denied his child a hepatitis B vaccine and required him to prove his identity to access medical records, that the health unit's vaccination policies created barriers, and that the College's policies and investigation of his complaint were discriminatory.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent police services board regarding their response to an incident at his residence.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had already commenced a civil action based on the same facts and seeking remedies for alleged human rights violations.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim raised substantially the same allegations and sought remedies under the Code.

As section 34(11) operates as an absolute bar to jurisdiction, the Tribunal dismissed the application and declined to consider the applicant's request to amend the application.