Nyilas v. Toronto Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1965

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Martin Nyilas

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Service

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: September 27, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1965

Indexed as: Nyilas v. Toronto Police Service

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Martin Nyilas, Applicant ) On his own behalf

1This Decision addresses whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with this Application, made under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of “record of offences.”

2On August 26, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant filed submissions on September 21, 2010 in response to the NOID.

3The Application indicates that the applicant was forced to resign his position as a civilian clerk with the Toronto Police Service (the “Service”) following being charged criminally, but prior to pleading guilty to those charges. In his response to the NOID, the applicant indicates that the Service was aware that he was going to plead guilty and “rushed to terminate” him before he had a criminal record in order to circumvent the protections of the Code.

4The term “record of offences” is defined in section 10(1) of the Code as follows:

“record of offences” means a conviction for,

(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked; or

(b) an offence in respect of any provincial enactment.

[Emphasis added]

5Contrary to the assertion of the applicant, the ground “record of offences” does not protect those who have been convicted of a criminal offence, but only provides protection to those who, subsequent to that conviction, have received a pardon which has not been revoked. Likewise, it does not protect those who have been charged with an offence in the period prior to the disposition of those charges.

6Given that the applicant has not been pardoned, the definition of “record of offences” does not apply to the facts of this Application. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application and the Application is, therefore, dismissed.