John Tewogbade v. Toronto Police Services Board and Mike Earl, 2009 HRTO 1626

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

John Tewogbade Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Mike Earl Respondents

-and-

Toronto Police Association Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: October 7, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1626 Indexed as: Tewogbade v. Toronto Police Services Board

1This is an Application filed January 7, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the request for production filed by the applicant.

2The applicant filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on May 6, 2005 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin and disability. The applicant self-identifies as an African Canadian male with an addiction to marijuana.

3Following his arrest for various offences under the Criminal Code, the applicant resigned his employment as a police officer and arranged a plea bargain of the outstanding criminal charges. These events took place on November 8, 2004 and the applicant alleges that the persons directly involved were himself, his father, a lawyer for the Toronto Police Association, Gary Clewley, two professional standards officers and Detective Sergeant Mike Earl.

4The applicant alleges that his forced resignation constitutes discrimination on intersecting grounds of disability and race.

5In a prior Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 1441, the Tribunal indicated that it would hear the preliminary issues of abuse of process, jurisdiction and duress and directed the applicant to refine his requests for production to those documents required for the preliminary issues.

6The applicant requested extensive documentation for the preliminary issues. The respondents did not file any responding submissions. The intervenor has objected to all the requested production on the basis that the applicant has not set out sufficient factual pleadings with respect to the alleged duress and has not explained how the requested documents relate to the preliminary issues.

7I agree that the applicant's request for documents is inadequate. It contains a simple list of the documents requested. From the description of the documents listed, I am unable to conclude that any of the documents requested are relevant to the issue of the duress the applicant allegedly experienced on November 8, 2004. The request is refused.

8I am not seized.