Abdollahnejad v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 1137

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mehdy Abdollahnejad

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Jason Gobeil

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: May 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1137

Indexed as: Abdollahnejad v. Toronto Police Services Board

1This is an Application made under s. 53(3) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”) dated December 10, 2008. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on April 12, 2006.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the following matters: the request for production made by the applicant; the request for dismissal of the Application as against the Toronto Police Services Board; and the applicant’s failure to file certain materials as required by the Rules.

3With regard to the request for production made by the applicant, it appears from the material filed on behalf of the personal respondent that most of the documents sought either have been produced or do not exist. The only exception relates to the request made for the complete personnel file of Officer Gobeil. The applicant also specifically requested disclosure of any complaints made against Officer Gobeil alleging racial discrimination. Officer Gobeil has stated that no such documents exist and, as a result, it is unnecessary to address disclosure of such documents.

4With regard to the request for the complete personnel file, this Tribunal already has held that such requests are over-broad: King v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 33 at para. 46. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for disclosure of the complete personnel file of Officer Gobeil is denied.

5I will next address the request made by the respondent Board for dismissal of the Application as against it. Counsel for the respondents first takes the position that the Application ought to be dismissed as against the Toronto Police Services Board because no allegation was made against it in the Application or in the underlying complaint. I disagree.

6On the face of the Amended Complaint, the Toronto Police Services Board is identified along with Officer Gobeil as the “Individual / Organization complained about”. On the second page of the complaint, “Toronto Police, 41 Division” is identified under the heading “Business, organization or association you are complaining about”, while Officer Gobeil is identified under the heading “Names of persons you are complaining about”. From this, in my view, it appears that the Board was named as a respondent in its representative capacity as being alleged to be liable for the actions of the personal respondent Officer Gobeil.

7The respondent Board next takes the position that the Board cannot be deemed to be liable for any infringement of the Code that may be found against Officer Gobeil. For the reasons expressed in King v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 644 at paras. 15-21, I do not accept this argument and am not prepared to dismiss this Application as against the respondent Board at this stage.

8Of course, as I noted in King, supra, whether or not any finding of liability is made against the Board at the end of the day in this proceeding will depend upon the adjudicator’s consideration of all of the evidence received at the hearing.

9Finally, I note that the applicant requested and was granted an extension to April 15, 2010 to file a statement of additional facts and remedy. However, no such material has been filed with the Tribunal to date. In addition, by May 12, 2010, the applicant was required to file a list of any witnesses he proposed to call at the hearing, a brief statement of their anticipated evidence, and copies of any documents he proposed to rely on at the hearing. Once again, to date no such material has been filed with the Tribunal.

10The hearing in this matter is scheduled to proceed on June 1, 2010. In light of the applicant’s failure to file material with the Tribunal, it is not clear to me whether the applicant still intends to proceed with this Application. Accordingly, within seven days of the date of this Decision, the applicant or his representative shall confirm with the Tribunal and the respondents whether the applicant still intends to proceed with this Application and whether he intends to appear at the hearing. If the Tribunal does not receive such confirmation, the Tribunal may cancel the hearing and dismiss the Application as having been abandoned.