N.M. v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 768

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

N.M.

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service

Respondents

INTERIM Decision

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: April 19, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 768

Indexed as: N.M. 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 January 31, 2011. The Application was delivered to the respondents on March 21, 2011, with a direction to file a Response by April 26, 2011.

2On April 7, 2011, counsel for the respondents, Michele A. Wright, filed the following correspondence with the Tribunal:

I am a lawyer with the City Solicitor's Office. As you know, this office frequently represents the Toronto Police Services Board in human rights applications.

We are in receipt of the application commenced by Ms. [M].. In her application, Ms. [M]. has named the "42 Division Police" as the organizational respondent. However, the "42 Division Police" is not an entity that can be named in a human rights application.

Therefore, I am writing to request clarification from Ms. [M]. with respect to the party that she intends to name in her application.

In most cases, the proper party is either the Toronto Police Services Board (the "Board") or the Chief of Police, William Blair (the "Chief'). While the distinct roles of the Board and the Chief are frequently misunderstood by applicants, it is important to the police parties that the identity of the respondent be resolved at the outset of the application. Among other issues, the identity of the respondent determines such key preliminary issues such as the identity of counsel and who will instruct counsel.

We request that the Tribunal contact the applicant and ask her to advise which police party is the proper respondent. For the assistance of Ms. [M]., attached is 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.ca/en/search/.

Until this issue is clarified, we will not be in a position to file a response. However, the Board does not waive its rights to do so, if it is ultimately named as a respondent.

In addition, I am also writing to advise the Tribunal that it is important for Ms. [M]. to properly identify the respondent she intends to name so that the respondent can consider bringing a court application for access to the criminal records related to her son, who Ms. [M]. indicates is 17 years old and, thus, a youth under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

3The request of the respondents for clarification or an extension based on the naming of the respondent 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.

4In the circumstances, the Tribunal amends the style of cause on its own motion to name both the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police, Toronto Police Service. In the future, if there is any doubt about who or which police party is named and the respondents believe that the identity as between these two respondents is in question, both the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police must file a Response within the time set out in the Tribunal’s rules.

5If it turns out that the applicant’s son’s YCJA records are important, the respondents may request an amendment of their Response after filing a Response based on the information that is available to them now.

6The respondents shall file a Response by April 26, 2011 and this deadline shall not be extended absent exceptional circumstances. Any failure to file a Response by the deadline without a specific order from the Tribunal extending the deadline may lead to an order pursuant to Rule 5.5 without further notice to the respondents.

7I am not seized.