Byaruhanga v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1557

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Allan Byaruhanga

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Daryl Cherry and Richard Hanes

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: September 25, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1557

Indexed as: Byaruhanga v. Toronto Police Services Board

1This Application dated July 11, 2009, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), named the Toronto Police Service, Daryl Cherry and Richard Hanes as respondents. On July 22, 2009 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondent. The respondent was advised that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal not later than 35 days after July 22, 2009.

2The Toronto Police Services Board filed a Response without prejudice, and submissions setting out why it opposed a correction of the respondent “Toronto Police Service” to “Toronto Police Services Board”, noting the Tribunal’s decision Smyth v. Toronto Police Service, 2009 HRTO 1029. The applicant filed a Reply supporting such a correction. It is appropriate to correct the name of this respondent to “Toronto Police Services Board”: Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513. This Interim Decision in no way affects any defence or legal argument the Toronto Police Services Board may wish to rely upon in this proceeding.

3As of the date of this Interim Decision the respondents Cherry and Hanes have not filed Responses, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence been returned.

4An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and corporate respondents without their participation. The respondent’s attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads as follows:

5.5 Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may:

a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application;

b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent;

c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding;

d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.

The applicant has provided an address and phone number for the personal respondents. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondents by regular mail and courier. It shall also send a copy to the Chief of Police of the City of Toronto.

5If the personal respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, they shall file a Response by October 2, 2009, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to these respondents and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

6I am not seized.