Heath v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 1569

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Junior Heath

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Wayne Alexander and Robin Dey

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: August 22, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1569

Indexed as: Heath v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Toronto Police Services Board and ) Andrea Denovan, Counsel Wayne Alexander, Respondents )

1This Application named as a respondent Officer Sunny Day (badge #1099). It is clear from the Response that the officer who holds badge #1099 is Detective Robin Dey. However, Detective Dey and counsel for the Toronto Police Services Board have failed to respond and counsel has written to the Tribunal advising that there is no officer named Sunny Day.

2In Villeneuve v. Dragon Restaurant, 2008 HRTO 258 at para. 4 the Tribunal stated:

Where it is obvious that a respondent has been misnamed by an applicant but the application has nonetheless been delivered to the respondent, the most appropriate course is for the respondent to file a response, and ask in the response that the Tribunal correct his, her or its name.

3In Surh v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 45 the Tribunal held as follows:

In Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335 at paras. 4-7, the Tribunal held as follows:

Human rights applications are serious matters. The Code, which has been described as quasi-constitutional legislation, enumerates our most fundamental rights and responsibilities. The enforcement procedures in the Code provide the opportunity for individuals who believe their human rights have been infringed, to file applications directly with the Tribunal, and have the merits of those claims determined in a timely way. Where the Tribunal finds that an applicant’s rights have been violated, the Tribunal has broad remedial powers, and may award monetary compensation and make orders to ensure future compliance with the Code.

When an individual files a human rights application, they are commencing a legal proceeding that requires a respondent to take immediate steps. The respondent must inform itself about the subject matter of the claim and, except in limited circumstances, file a complete response. This may involve the expenditure of significant resources.

Likewise, the filing of a human rights application engages public resources. The Tribunal expects to receive thousands of applications each year from individuals who believe their human rights have been violated. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all applicants who file applications. Most important, because of the quasi-constitutional nature of human rights, and in furtherance of its statutory mandate, the Tribunal has an obligation to treat each application seriously, and ensure that it is dealt with fairly and expeditiously.

The opportunity for an individual to make a claim of discrimination to a publicly funded adjudicative body, which has extensive procedural and remedial powers, comes with the obligation to respect the seriousness and significance of the process, and comply with the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal’s procedures are less formal than a court’s and aim to enhance access, including for those parties who may be self-represented. But this informality should not be interpreted to mean that parties may take a casual attitude towards complying with Tribunal directions. There may be circumstances which justify a party’s failure to comply with a Tribunal rule or direction. However, an applicant who does not respond to Tribunal directions risks having the application dismissed.

The obligation to respect the seriousness and significance of the Tribunal process applies with equal force to respondents. While they are entitled to vigorously defend applications made against them, respondents must comply with the letter and the spirit of the Tribunal’s Rules and directions.

It is often the case that respondents are not correctly named by an applicant when an Application is filed. The Tribunal expects that a respondent that is incorrectly named will file a Response that sets out its correct legal name, and generally at that point the style of cause is corrected without objection. It is overly technical and inconsistent with the fair, just and expeditious resolution of applications for a respondent to fail to respond because of how it is named.

4In the circumstances, the Tribunal Orders as follows:

1. Robin Dey shall file a Response by the close of business on August 25, 2011.

2. 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.