Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Dave Ferguson
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board and Toronto Police Services
Respondents
INTERIM Decision
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Indexed as: Ferguson v. Toronto Police Services Board
1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, filed on February 24, 2011. The Application was delivered to the respondents on March 4, 2011, with a direction to file a Response by April 8, 2011.
2On April 8, 2011, counsel for the respondents, Andrea Denovan, filed the following correspondence with the Tribunal:
I am counsel for the respondent Toronto Police Services Board and I am a lawyer with the City Solicitor's Office. As you know, this office frequently represents the Toronto Police Services Board (the "Board") and/or the Chief of Police, William Blair (the "Chief") in human rights applications.
The application commenced by Mr. Ferguson names the Toronto Police Services Board and Toronto Police Services as the organizational respondents. However, Toronto Police Services is not an entity that can be named in a human rights application; it is not a legal entity. In addition, at page 16, paragraph 20 of the Application, it states that the Applicant also intends to name a number of Toronto Police Officers as respondents.
While the distinct roles of the Board and the Chief are frequently misunderstood by applicants, it is vital to the police parties that the identity of the respondents be resolved at the outset of the application. Among other issues, the identity of the respondents determines such key preliminary issues such as who will instruct counsel.
I request, therefore, that the Tribunal contact Mr. Ferguson and his legal counsel and ask them to advise who they intend to name as respondents and what information they require in order to do so. Until this issue is clarified, I will not be in a position to file a response. It is procedurally fair and efficient to have Mr. Ferguson clarify who he wishes to name as respondents, before any response is filed on behalf of any party, including the Board. Please note that no party waives their right to respond.
Given the circumstances, I respectfully suggest that it would be appropriate for the deadline to be extended until the foregoing issues have been clarified. To be clear, I also request that the deadline to respond on behalf of the Board be extended, until the issue of the proper respondents and identification of the officers, is clarified. In the alternative, if the Tribunal rejects my submissions, I seek to extend the timeline to respond on behalf of the Board to April 29, 2011. I have only just received relevant documents and have various individuals to consult, before filing a response.
For the assistance of the Tribunal and Mr. Ferguson, I attach an extract from the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P.15, that sets out the different responsibilities of the Board and the Chief. A complete copy of the Police Services Act is available at: http://www.search.elaws.gov.on.calenlsearchl.
3The request of the respondents for clarification or an extension based on the naming of the respondents 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.
4However, it is quite appropriate for the respondents to make an extension Request on the basis that counsel requires time to review documents and consult individuals. The deadline for the respondents to file a complete Response is extended to April 29, 2011.
5I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 14^th^ day of April, 2011.
“Signed by”
David A. Wright
Associate Chair