Stephenson v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 2371

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Marian Stephenson Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, City of Toronto, and Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: November 30, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2371 Indexed as: Stephenson v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Marian Stephenson, Applicant ) Patrick James, Counsel Toronto Police Service, Respondent ) No one responding City of Toronto ) Darragh Meagher, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the naming of respondents in this Application filed on June 10, 2010, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the "Code"). On her Application form, the applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and identifies the respondent as the "Toronto Police Service".

2No Response has been filed on behalf of the Toronto Police Service. A document entitled "response" and dated October 8, 2010 was sent to the Tribunal and the applicant's counsel by counsel from the City of Toronto (the "City's counsel") advising that the respondent Toronto Police Service is not a known legal entity, and does not exist as a matter of law ("the document").

3Following receipt of the document, the applicant's counsel filed a Request for Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") requesting that the Tribunal issue an Order amending the name of the respondent to whatever name the respondent prefers and requiring the respondent to file a Response within five days. The applicant submitted that the respondent had refused or failed to provide its preferred legal name in the document, noted that it held itself out on its website as "Toronto Police Service" and cited six other matters (from www.canlii.org) which were commenced before and ruled upon by the Tribunal in which "Toronto Police Service" or variations thereof were used. The applicant requests that the respondent be required to advise the Tribunal of its preferred legal name, and that the title of proceeding be amended to include "City of Toronto", the "Toronto Police Services Board" and "Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service".

4The City's counsel filed a Response to the RFOP opposing the remedies requested by the applicant. The City's counsel submitted that the applicant's failure to name a legal entity is not a technical issue, it is not a respondent's obligation to direct an applicant as to how to assert a claim against it, and it is inappropriate for an applicant or the Tribunal to require a non-party to voluntarily submit to the Tribunal's jurisdiction when no proceeding has been properly commenced before it.

Analysis

5While the applicant referenced a number of Tribunal decisions in which "Toronto Police Service" or variations thereof has been named as a respondent, with the exception of two decisions, the Toronto Police Service was not yet involved in the Tribunal proceedings and those decisions are not instructive on the issue of the proper identification of Toronto Police Service as being a respondent. See Stanley v. Toronto Police Service, 2008 HRTO 166, which addressed the respondent's failure to file a Response; Jerome v. Toronto Police Service, 2009 HRTO 895, in which the Application was withdrawn with the respondent submitting it could not be withdrawn on a without prejudice basis; Duarte v. Toronto Police Service, 2009 HRTO 908, in which the Tribunal denied the applicant's Request to Expedite before the Application was sent to the respondent; Guo v. Toronto Police Service, 2010 HRTO 77, in which the Application was withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal and without submissions from the respondent; and Nyilas v. Toronto Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1965, and Babin v. Toronto Police Service, 2009 HRTO 533, in which the Applications were dismissed because the definition of "record of offences" as prescribed by the Code was not met.

6The issue of the correct identification of the police force in Toronto has previously been raised before the Tribunal in Smyth v. Toronto Police Service, 2009 HRTO 1029. In that case, the applicant identified "Toronto Police Service, Officer #9930, Officer #9978, and Toronto Ambulance Service" as respondents to his Application. A Response was filed stating that "Toronto Police Service" is not a legal entity. The Tribunal stated at para. 3:

I am concerned about the failure of the Toronto Police Services to file a response. While I appreciate that there may be issues about whether the Toronto Police Services Board is liable for the actions of individual police officers and the legal status of the "Toronto Police Service", this does not relieve the Board of its responsibility to respond to a human rights complaint filed by a member of the public where it is clear that person intended to name the legal entity responsible for police services in the City of Toronto. By naming the "Toronto Police Service" at 40 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, it seems clear that the applicant intended to do so. I note that the City of Toronto responded, even though it was apparently incorrectly named as Toronto Ambulance Service.

7I am similarly concerned about the failure of the Toronto Police Service to file a Response to this Application. The applicant alleges that she was employed by Toronto Police Services, which, according to its website www.torontopolice.on.ca, self-identifies as being "Toronto Police Services" and provides contact information as to its location on College Street, Toronto, the same address as that set out for the respondent in the Application. The website provides information on how to file a complaint about a police officer or a policy or "services of the Toronto Police Services", and while the described process does not address human rights applications before the Tribunal, there is no information to suggest that something other than "Toronto Police Services" should be used in any complaint or legal process.

8While I appreciate that there may be issues about the legal status of "Toronto Police Services", as stated in Smyth, this does not relieve the Toronto Police Services from its responsibility of filing a Response to respond to a human rights application filed by a member of the public, in this case its employee, where it is clear that the person intended to name the legal entity responsible for police services in the City of Toronto.

9Accordingly, and further to Rule 1.7(b), I am granting the applicant's request to have the name of the respondent amended to include "Toronto Police Services Board, City of Toronto, and Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service".

10The Application will be sent to all the named respondents, who must file their Responses in accordance with the time required by the Tribunal's Rules.

11I am not seized of this matter.