Dungus v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 366

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ahmed Rabah Dungus

Complainant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Andrew Blunk, Darren Halman,

Jeffrey Treusch, Sean McGuinness, David Roberts,

Karen Chapman and Conrad Rozario

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: February 18, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 366

Indexed as: Dungus v. Toronto Police Services Board

1On December 6, 2010, the Tribunal issued its Decision on the merits of the complaint, 2010 HRTO 2419, in which it found that the complainant was discriminated against by Officer Dennis’ remarks during fingerprinting and by Officer Blunk contacting the complainant’s then employer Department of National Defence. This Interim Decision addresses which parties are liable and provides directions regarding the continuation of this matter.

2In the Decision on merits at paragraphs 73-74, the Tribunal addressed the continuation of the matter as follows:

The respondents requested an opportunity to make submissions on whether or not the Toronto Police Services Board is liable for the conduct of the officers in the event that any finding of discrimination was made. The respondent TPSB is directed to advise the Registrar-Transition within 14 days as to whether or not it wishes to makes submissions on liability, and if it does, to file such submissions. In the event that the respondent TPSB files submissions, the other parties may file any submissions in response within 7 days of the receipt of the submissions. In the absence of any submissions being made by the TPSB, I will issue a supplementary decision as to which parties are liable for the violations found.

In addition, I note that the hearing was bifurcated. The parties are encouraged to have discussions with a view to arriving at a settlement without further adjudication. In the event that the parties are unable to agree on remedy, the hearing will be reconvened by teleconference call to determine how to proceed.

3No submissions have been received.

Which parties are liable?

4At the hearing, the complainant took the position that the TPSB and all named individual respondents should be found liable although he did not make any specific submissions as to the rationale for finding any particular officer liable for the specific findings of discrimination made. I note that Aaron Dennis, the officer who made the remarks to the complainant during fingerprinting was not named as a respondent.

5Under section 46.3 (1), the Tribunal has found that a police services board is liable for the discriminatory actions of police officers when carried out in the course of his/her employment. See Phipps v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1604, upheld on this point Shaw v. Phipps, 2010 ONSC 3884. In the circumstances of this case, having regard to all of the circumstances including the nature of the specific findings made and section 46.3(1), I find the TPSB is liable for the discrimination found. I decline to make any finding of liability against the individual officers named.

Continuation of the Proceeding

6With respect to the continuation of the proceeding, the parties are directed to advise the Registrar-Transition within 30 days of the date of this Interim Decision as to whether they wish the hearing to be reconvened by teleconference call in accordance with paragraph 74 of the Decision on the merits.