HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lisa Milne
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board and Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Indexed as: Milne v. Toronto Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Toronto Police Service ) Darragh Meaghar, Counsel
1In a series of cases, the Toronto Police Services Board and Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service have not responded to applications naming the “Toronto Police Service”. The Tribunal has held on numerous occasions that the Toronto Police Services Board and/or the Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service must respond to a case naming the Toronto Police Service: N.M. v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 768; Surh v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 45; Stephenson v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 2371; and Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1029. It has held that the failure of the applicant to correctly identify the legal name of the respondent does not relieve the Board and the Chief, or indeed any respondent, of the obligation to respond, on the merits, by the deadline set, to an Application. In each of these cases, the Tribunal made it clear that even if a police respondent is not named correctly or if there is an issue as to the identity of the particular police respondent, a substantive response must be filed on behalf of the police.
2In N.M., supra, the Tribunal held as follows at paras. 3-4:
The request of the respondents for clarification or an extension based on the naming of the respondent is without merit and inconsistent with clear rulings about this issue involving these respondents that the Tribunal has made on numerous occasions: Surh v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 45; Stephenson v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 2371; Smyth v. Toronto Police Service, 2009 HRTO 1029. There is no need to repeat the reasoning in those decisions. I express my concern about the respondents’ failure to act in accordance with the Tribunal’s previous rulings.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal amends the style of cause on its own motion to name both the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service. In the future, if there is any doubt about who or which police party is named and the respondents believe that the identity as between these two respondents is in question, both the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police must file a Response within the time set out in the Tribunal’s rules.
[emphasis added]
3In this case, the applicant named the respondent as “Toronto Police Service” and the Tribunal delivered the Application and required a Response in accordance with the Rules. Counsel for the respondent wrote to the self-represented applicant, not referring to the recent cases, suggesting that Toronto Police Service was a “nullity” and suggesting that the applicant would have to amend her application. It filed a Response requesting that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the “Toronto Police Service” is not a legal entity and did not respond on the merits. The Tribunal again expresses its concern about the failure and/or refusal of the respondents to follow the Tribunal’s clear directions and case law.
4In the circumstances, the Tribunal Orders as follows:
(a) On its own initiative, the Tribunal amends the names of the respondents to Toronto Police Services Board and Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service;
(b) The respondents shall file a Response or Responses by the close of business on August 18, 2011. This deadline will not be extended absent exceptional circumstances;
(c) The Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service; the Toronto Police Services Board; or both must file a substantive response on the merits, in accordance with the Tribunal Rules, to any Application delivered to any office or division of the Toronto Police Services Board or the Toronto Police Service that names the Toronto police, including the “Toronto Police Service”, as an organizational respondent, regardless of whether that respondent is a legal entity or is correctly named. Such a Response will be without prejudice to any argument they wish to make about legal liability; and
(d) Counsel for the respondents shall provide a copy of this Decision, within seven days, to all lawyers in the City Solicitor’s Office who regularly work on police human rights applications, and all individuals in private firms who regularly work on police human rights applications and shall confirm to the Tribunal that this has been done.
5I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of August, 2011.
“Signed by”
David A. Wright
Associate Chair