Reza Bahramzadeh-Germi v. Toronto Police Services Board and William Blair, 2011 HRTO 1682

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Reza Bahramzadeh-Germi

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and William Blair

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: September 13, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1682

Indexed as: Bahramazheh-Germi v. Toronto Police Services Board

1The applicant filed this Application on January 29, 2010, alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the Toronto Police Services Board (the “Board”) on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2This Interim Decision addresses the last outstanding issue raised by the applicant, namely whether a retired police officer, Norman Smart, should be added as an individual respondent to this Application.

3On September 29, 2010, the applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings asking to add the Chief of Police (the “Chief”), William Blair, and the individual officer as respondents to his Application. This Request was deemed abandoned, but the applicant subsequently brought a new Request, which he served on counsel to the proposed respondents on July 8, 2011. In an earlier Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 1445, I added William Blair on consent and directed that the applicant was to deliver written submissions in which he sets out why he believes the individual officer should be added as a respondent to his Application.

4Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 at para. 42, the Tribunal set out the general principles that apply to this issue:

The unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as this serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings and can often operate as a roadblock to resolution. Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Code, a corporation is deemed to be liable for “any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent”. Where there is no issue as to the ability of a corporate respondent to respond to or remedy an alleged Code infringement and no issue raised as to a corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the actions of an individual who is sought to be added as a personal respondent, then in my view the individual ought not be added as a personal respondent in the absence of some compelling juridical reason. A compelling juridical reason may exist, for example, where it is the individual conduct of a proposed personal respondent that is a central issue as opposed to actions which are more in the nature of following organizational practices or policies or where the nature of the alleged conduct of a proposed personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found.

5The Chief and Mr. Smart oppose the applicant’s request to add the individual as a respondent to this Application. Although the applicant did file submissions, as directed, they simply state that because Mr. Smart clearly violated the Code, he should be added as a respondent (unless he is prepared to admit to the allegations).

6The respondents submit that Mr. Smart’s actions did not violate the Code, and even if they did, were done in the course of his duties. Moreover, the Chief assumes responsibility for the conduct of Mr. Smart in the event that he is found to have violated the Code. The respondents further submit that the applicant’s right to a full and fair hearing, and his right to full remedies should his Application be upheld, would not be detrimentally affected in the event that Mr. Smart is not added as an individual respondent.

7The respondent’s willingness to provide access to Mr. Smart as a witness and to assume liability for his conduct, militate in favour of not adding him as a party. Likewise, his retired status means that there are fewer specific remedies that the Tribunal might appropriately award against him personally. Moreover, the applicant did not identify any compelling basis on which I might exercise my discretion to add him as an additional respondent.

8Accordingly, the applicant’s request to add Norman Smart as a respondent to these proceedings is denied.

9The respondent William Blair is reminded, as per my earlier Interim Decision, that if he wishes, he may file a Response to the Application within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

10I am not seized of this matter.