A.S. and E.C. v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 166

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

A.S. and E.C.

Complainants

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board

Respondent

-and-

Attorney General of Ontario

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: February 17, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 166

Indexed as: S. and C. v. Toronto Police Services Board

1These complaints challenge the Toronto Police Services Board’s policy and program with respect to executing “police reference checks” in circumstances where the police record discloses apprehensions under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, as amended (“Mental Health Act”). This interim decision deals with a Request for Leave to Intervene by the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office.

2The Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (“PPAO”) submits that it has long standing commitment and experience in advocating for the legal rights and interests of persons with mental health disabilities both within the community and psychiatric facilities. The PPAO provides advice and patient advocacy services with respect to a broad range of legal, therapeutic and social issues. The PPAO has limited its request to intervene to only participation by way of written submissions with respect to the legal issues in the case. The PPAO proposes to address how the respondent’s reference check program allegedly contravenes the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) and what procedural and substantive accommodation standard may be applied to comport with human rights law.

3The Commission and the complainants consent to the proposed intervention. The respondent Toronto Police Services Board and the Intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario, have taken no position with respect the PPAO’s request.

4In Braithwaite v. Ontario (Attorney General) 2005 HRTO 32, the PPAO was recognized as a public interest litigant and allowed to participate in that proceeding as an intervenor to assist the Tribunal.

5The PPAO clearly has a significant interest in the case and offers a distinct perspective on the legal issues informed by its history and experience with the mental health arena. Given that the PPAO’s proposed intervention will not delay the scheduled hearing and that no party has objected, the request for intervenor status is allowed.

ORDER

6Accordingly, the PPAO is granted intervener status to participate by way of written submissions with respect to the legal issues in the case. The Registrar shall deliver all future notices from the Tribunal regarding this proceeding to the PPAO. The PPAO must comply with any time requirements that the Tribunal schedules with respect to filing and delivery of written submissions.