Ghafourian v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1731

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Farideh Ghafourian

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, B. Steed, M. Nunno,

M. Powell and William Blair

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 21, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1731

Indexed as: Ghafourian v. Toronto Police Services Board

1This Application was filed March 24, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to add respondents to the proceeding.

Background

2The applicant filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on February 15, 2008 alleging that the respondents failed to appropriately respond to her requests for police assistance because they perceived her to have a mental disability.

Addition of Parties

3The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add the following persons as respondents: William Blair, the Chief of Police, Alok Mukherjee, head of the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) and the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

4The applicable provision of the new Code relating to parties is section 36:

The parties to an application under section 34 or 35 are the following:

1. In the case of an application under subsection 34 (1), the person who made the application.

2. In the case of an application under subsection 34 (5), the person on behalf of whom the application is made.

3. In the case of an application under section 35, the Commission.

4. Any person against whom an order is sought in the application.

5. Any other person or the Commission, if they are added as a party by the Tribunal.

5Under s. 36, the Tribunal continues to have a broad discretion to add parties to an application.

6The Tribunal has held that a respondent may be added where alleged facts, if proven, could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code; the proposed respondent would not suffer real and substantial prejudice if added as a party to the proceeding, and it would be fair, in all the circumstances to add the proposed respondents: Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513.

Alok Mukherjee

7The applicant has not set out any allegations which could lead to a finding that Mr. Mukherjee breached the applicant’s rights and therefore the request to add him is denied.

William Blair, Chief of Police

8The Tribunal has held that the Chief of Police is jointly responsible, together with the TPSB for the discriminatory actions of police officers; Phipps v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1604. The TPSB continues to assert that it is not vicariously responsible for the actions of the personal respondents. In these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to add William Blair, Chief of Police as a respondent to these proceedings. The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the addition of William Blair, Chief of Police. William Blair my deliver a Response to the Application within 35 days of being added as a respondent.

Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants

9The original complaint does not mention any involvement by the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to add it as a respondent to the Application.