Shallow v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 2376

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Roger Shallow

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Gail Shields, Paul Clarke, Michael Harnish, Rob Lyon, Arlene Duffy and the Toronto Police Association

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: November 30, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2376

Indexed as: Shallow v. Toronto Police Services Board

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 October 6, 2008. The Application alleges discrimination with respect to services on the grounds of race and colour.

2Pursuant to an Interim Decision dated August 25, 2010, 2010 HRTO 1752, the Toronto Police Association (“Association”) was added as a respondent to this Application in respect of an allegation of reprisal which was also added to the Application. On September 29, 2010, the Association’s counsel filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”).

3This Interim Decision deals with the Association’s request for particulars, and for copies of documents or records referenced by the applicant, as well as a request for an extension of time to file a Response. As I understand the Request, the Association asks to be permitted to file its Response two weeks after it receives this Interim Decision.

4The covering letter and the Request refer to the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings that resulted in the August 25, 2010 Interim Decision. In that Request, the applicant had alleged that the Toronto Police Association has

…engaged in a deliberate course of conduct designed to deter, punish, and belittle” the applicant “for having filed a human rights complaint against members of the Toronto Police Association. The actions and conduct of the named respondents includes but is not limited to the following: a) the creation of an atmosphere of professional hostility and alienation between the complainant and members of the Toronto Police Service, designed to force the complainant to work elsewhere in the province, or resign altogether; b) the sending of letters to the complainant’s employers, and governing body, including a formal complaint to the Ministry of the Attorney General; c) misuse of the media and ongoing internet libel in an effort to further sully and belittle the complainant and his reputation in a very public, unprecedented, and unfair way.

The Request for Particulars

5In making allegations in respect of an Application to the Tribunal, the parties are expected to provide as much detail as possible of the “who, what, when and where” variety. If possible, specific dates should be given. Events should be described.

6The Tribunal will not ordinarily permit a delay in the filing of a Response where a respondent is given sufficient information in the application to enable it to understand the nature of the issues and respond to them. Orders for particulars are rarely entertained by the Tribunal in advance of a Response. In this case, however, I find the allegations against the Association insufficient, in their present form, to enable it to file a meaningful Response. In respect of the applicant’s allegation of reprisal, I find insufficient clarity about what the applicant alleges the Association has done. I order the applicant, no later than December 10, 2010, to disclose in writing to all respondents and file with the Tribunal the following:

a) details about what actions, and if possible by whom and when are viewed by the applicant as an attempt to create “an atmosphere of professional hostility and alienation between the complainant and members of the Toronto Police Service”,

b) the dates and authors (if known) of letters alleged to have been sent to the applicant’s “employers and governing body” and the date and source of the “formal complaint to the Ministry of the Attorney General”, and

c) dates and details of the alleged “misuse of the media and ongoing internet libel”.

Disclosure of documents

7The Association has requested a copy of the applicant’s Request of July 22, 2010, and the Statement of Delivery pertaining to that Request. For future reference, it is not necessary to file a Request for copies of this type of Application document; any party involved in the Application can simply contact the Registrar’s Office.

8The Association’s request for “documents and records referenced in” the applicant’s Request of July 22, 2010 is premature. Disclosure of material of this nature will be required, but not until “21 days after the Tribunal sends a Confirmation of Hearing to the parties” (see the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, Rules 16 and 17).

9In the Interim Decision dated August 25, 2010, I incorrectly stated that this Application was deferred pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings. In fact, this was a misreading of a previous Interim Decision in this matter; 2008 HRTO 364.

10The Association is permitted to file its Response on or before January 5, 2011.

11This matter was scheduled for mediation, which was cancelled pending resolution of the various Requests for Orders. After receipt of the Association’s Response, the parties are ordered to contact the Registrar’s office to indicate whether they wish to attempt mediation, and, if so, mediation will be scheduled in the normal course.

12I am not seized of this matter.