minicounsel

Kampe v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 128 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

October 7, 2008

Kampe v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 128

Case Summary

The complainant, alleging racial discrimination during a police stop while riding his bicycle, sought production of various documents from the respondent police services board. The Tribunal ordered the non-party Chief of Police to produce dispatch logs, use of force reports, and records of other cyclists stopped by the involved officers in the week prior to the incident, finding them arguably relevant. Requests for records of other incidents involving the complainant and general police database searches were dismissed as irrelevant.

Brian Kampe

Complainant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board

Respondent

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: October 7, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 128

Indexed As: Kampe v. Toronto (Police Services Board)

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14^th Floor

Toronto, ON M7A 2A3

Phone 416-314-8419 Fax 416- 314-8743 Toll Free 1-866-598-0322

TTY 416-314-2379 Toll Free1-800-424-1168

E-mail hrto.registrar-transition@ontario.ca

Website www.hrto.ca

Brian Kampe, Complainant ) On His Own Behalf

Toronto Police Services Board, Respondent ) Michele Wright,

) Counsel

William Blair, Chief of Police for the City of Toronto ) George H. Cowley,

) Counsel

[1] This interim decision addresses the complainant’s request for the production of documents and information.

BACKGROUND

[2] The complaint in this matter was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on December 11, 2006, and alleges discrimination because of race, colour, ancestry and ethnic origin contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) in relation to an incident on June 12, 2006 in which the complainant was stopped by the police while he was riding a bicycle in downtown Toronto and was subsequently arrested for possession of drugs.

[3] The complaint was referred by the Commission to the Tribunal on December 18, 2007, and the initial conference call to commence the hearing was held on January 23, 2008. After some delays at the request of the Commission while it sought production of documents from the respondent, the Commission’s hearing brief was filed on June 2, 2008, taking the position that there is no reasonable prospect of establishing a breach of the Code and that the appropriate order in this case is that the complaint be dismissed.

[4] After some further delay while the complainant sought his own legal counsel, which to date he has not retained, the complainant ultimately filed his hearing brief on July 13, 2008. The respondent filed its hearing brief on August 11, 2008. A pre-hearing conference call was held on August 13, 2008 to set dates for the hearing in this matter, and the hearing is scheduled to proceed on October 28 and 29, 2008.

NOTICE TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE

[5] On September 8, 2008, the complainant made a request for production of documents and information. The respondent responded in writing to this request on September 17, 2008, to which the complainant replied on September 24, 2008.

[6] The Tribunal is aware that the respondent has taken the position in other cases before this Tribunal that certain documents and records are in the possession or within the control of the Chief of Police and not the Board: see for example [King v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 33](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/33) at para. [22](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/33) and [McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 98](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/98). However, in the instant case, while the respondent disputed the various requests for production raised by the complainant, it did not express any position as to whether the material requested was in its possession or within its control.

[7] Accordingly, on September 24, 2008, the Tribunal sent out a notice to the parties and to the Chief of Police asking the respondent to advise whether any of the documents or information sought by the complainant is in the possession or within the control of the Chief of Police and not the respondent. The Tribunal also gave notice of the complainant’s production request to the Chief of Police and of the Tribunal’s power under Rule 14(h) of its Rules of Practice to make a production order against a non-party, and afforded the Chief of Police an opportunity to make submissions in response to the complainant’s request.

[9] The Chief of Police was made aware of the Tribunal’s power to make a production order against a non-party in this case and afforded a full opportunity to respond in writing. Further, in the King