Uriel Tait v. Toronto Police Service, 2010 HRTO 2104

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Uriel Tait

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Service – 54 Division and Toronto Police Service – 41 Division

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: October 19, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2104 Indexed as: Tait v. Toronto Police Service

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on January 26, 2010 alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour in police services by the respondents. The applicant was represented by counsel.

2On March 25, 2010, the Tribunal delivered the Application to the respondents. By letter dated April 28, 2010, a lawyer from the City of Toronto representing the Toronto Police Services Board (the “lawyer”) contacted the Tribunal requesting clarification of the name of the respondents. He advised that the Toronto Police Service is not an organization that can be named as a party to an Application under the Code and requested that the Tribunal communicate with the applicant or his counsel to clarify this issue. The lawyer sent a copy of this correspondence to the applicant’s counsel. The lawyer sent a subsequent letter to the Tribunal, dated June 22, on which the applicant’s counsel was copied, reiterating his request to have the proper name of the respondents addressed.

3On July 14, 2010 the Tribunal forwarded a copy of the lawyer’s June 22 letter to the applicant’s counsel. The Tribunal requested that the applicant provide a response to the issues raised in the lawyer’s correspondence within 14 days of the letter. The applicant’s counsel did not respond.

4On September 27, 2010 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s counsel, copying the lawyer. The letter stated:

The Tribunal is writing further to its correspondence dated July 14, 2010 and Mr. Gourley’s correspondence dated June 22, 2010 in which concerns about the proper naming of the respondents was brought to the applicant’s attention. The Tribunal has not received a response from the applicant addressing these issues.

The applicant has 10 days from the date of this letter to address the concerns that have been raised by Mr. Gourley in properly naming the respondents. If the Tribunal does not hear from the applicant by this date, the Application will be dismissed as abandoned.

5The Tribunal did not receive a response to its September 27 correspondence. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.