Kanji v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 1922

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Almas Kanji Applicant

-and-

Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: October 10, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1922 Indexed as: Kanji v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Almas Kanji, Applicant Patty Murray, Counsel

Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board and Chief of Peel Regional Police, Respondents Richard Miller, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services or facilities because of disability.

2On January 13, 2012 the respondent served a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) requesting removal of the personal respondent. The applicant filed a Response to the Request along with a Reply in respect of the Application on January 31, 2012. The applicant consents to the removal of the personal respondent.

3Among other Tribunal decisions, the respondents cite Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, which suggests a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in assessing whether a personal respondent should be removed:

• Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?

• Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who sought to be removed?

• Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?

• Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?

• Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?

4The respondent submits that both the first and the second Persaud factors favor removing the Chief of Police, as the applicant has named an organizational respondent, the Board, and has pled no material facts relating to the Chief of Police. In respect of the fourth factor, the respondent submits that the Chief should be removed as the applicant has made no allegations directly against him.

5The respondent also submits that there is no question of the Board's vicarious liability for the Chief's actions “as there are no alleged actions to be liable for in this instance”. The respondent states, in respect of the third factor, that the remedies other than the monetary “penalties” sought can only be provided by the Board “if they can be provided at all”.

6In respect of the fifth factor, the respondent submits that there is no obvious reason why these proceedings cannot continue, absent the involvement of the Chief of Police. Finally, the respondent submits that the applicant has not set out any factual claim which alleges “a causal connection between the Chief of Police and any respondents and any alleged discriminatory treatment…the Chief of Police does not know in what manner he is accused of violating the Code or why he has been named as a respondent…Natural justice requires that an application be set out in such a way as to enable a respondent to clearly identify the offenses which he or she has allegedly committed so that he or she may prepare a proper defense”.

7I agree with the submissions set out above in the circumstances of this case, with the exception of the respondent’s characterization of compensatory orders available to a successful applicant as monetary “penalties”. The respondent’s Request is granted, and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

ORDER

8The Chief of Peel Regional Police is removed as a respondent to this Application.

9I am not seized of this matter.