HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Saeed Soltanpour
Applicant
-and-
Town of Richmond Hill
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Soltanpour v. Richmond Hill (Town)
1The applicant filed his Application on February 1, 2011 alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of ethnic origin and reprisal, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). He alleges that he was improperly given a parking ticket by a by-law officer on the basis of his connection with an ethnic candidate who was running for municipal office.
2In addition to the Town of Richmond Hill, the applicant also named an individual respondent in his Application, Carmine Perrelli, who was another candidate in the same election. This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether Mr. Perrelli is properly named as a respondent in this proceeding.
3The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on August 5, 2011 asking him to provide written submissions by August 19, 2011 on why the Application should proceed against Mr. Perrelli. The applicant did not file submissions and the time for doing so has now passed.
4The allegations contained in the Application are not clearly set out, but as best as can be ascertained they are as follows: the applicant, who identifies himself as a freelance journalist, was attending a polling station at a school on Election Day with a camera crew. He alleges he was seen speaking to an ethnic candidate. While he was in the polling station his vehicle was ticketed, even though he believes it was parked legally in the school parking lot.
5He observed that Mr. Perrelli’s vehicle, which he states was parked in a bicycle lane, was not ticketed. When he asked the by-law officers why they ticketed his vehicle and not Mr. Perrelli’s, he alleges they were not able to provide him with a satisfactory answer. He further alleges that the by-law officers appeared to know Mr. Perrelli.
6The applicant is not alleging that Mr. Perrelli was responsible for the decision to ticket him or otherwise participated in the alleged discriminatory behaviour. Assuming the allegations to be true, Mr. Perrelli was, at best, the recipient of preferential treatment. As Mr. Perrelli quite rightfully points out in his Response, there are no allegations of discrimination against him to which he can respond.
7Accordingly, Carmine Perrelli is removed as a respondent to this Application and the style of cause amended accordingly.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of September, 2011
”signed by”______________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair