HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mohammad Chaudhry
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Indexed as: Chaudhry v. Toronto Police Services Board
APPEARANCES
Mohammad Chaudhry, Applicant
No one appearing
Toronto Police Services Board, Respondent
Michele Wright, Counsel
1The applicant applied for a job with the Toronto Transit Commission in March of 2012. As part of the application process he was obliged to provide the Commission with a vulnerable persons reference check (“VPRC”) from the Toronto Police Service. When he obtained the VPRC it indicated that he was a person of interest in relation to two incidents which took place in late 2008 and were investigated by the police in 2009. He asked that this information be removed from his records. The respondent refused to do so, and in May of 2012 he filed a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (“OIPRD”). The OIPRD upheld the decision to maintain the information in his records.
2The applicant self-identifies as a person of East Asian origin and as a Muslim. He filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour and ethnic origin. He alleges that the respondent refuses to remove the information identifying him as a person of interest in relation to the incidents because it discriminates against visible minorities.
3The Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. On May 24, 2013, the applicant was sent a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing by regular mail to the address he provided to the Tribunal. The Notice advised him that the summary hearing would take place by teleconference on July 29, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. It also advised him that if he did not participate, then the Tribunal could dismiss his Application as abandoned. The Notice was not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.
4The applicant did not participate in the teleconference at the scheduled start time. In keeping with the Tribunal’s practice, I waited an additional half an hour in case the applicant was late, but he did not attend the teleconference.
5I am satisfied that the applicant was given notice of this summary hearing. As the applicant failed to participate, despite having been given notice of the hearing and having been advised of the possible consequence of not doing so, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.
order
6The Application is dismissed as abandoned.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of July, 2013.
“Signed by”
Paul Aterman
Vice-chair