Zaromitidis v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1459

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jimmy Zaromitidis

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: August 28, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1459

Indexed as: Zaromitidis v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jimmy Zaromitidis, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is 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 employment and membership in a vocational association on the basis of disability, race, ethnic origin and age. The Application alleges that the applicant was subject to discriminatory treatment when applying to become a police constable. The Application alleges that he was subject to discriminatory treatment by individual members of the Toronto Police Services when he made enquiries about applying to be a constable with the Toronto Police Services. The Application further alleges that the hearing standards required under the Constable Selection System (the “CSS”) are discriminatory.

2This Interim Decision addresses a request by the applicant for the production of documents related to the testing he underwent as part of the CSS process.

3The applicant applied to be a police constable under the CSS. The CSS is a testing process and set of criteria developed by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (the “Ministry”). The CSS consists of three assessment stages; Stage 1 is a series of “pre-interview tests comprised of a Police Analytical Thinking Inventory (“PATI”), a Written Communications Test (“WCT”), a medical/physical test including a Physical Readiness Evaluation for Police (“PREP), a Behavioural Personnel Assessment Device (“B-PAD”) test and vision and hearing tests. Individuals who successfully complete Stage I of the CSS receive a Certificate of Results that allows them to then apply to any police service in Ontario that employs the CSS as part of its recruitment process. Once an applicant applies to a specific police service it is that police service that conducts the Stage 2 and Stage 3 assessments which includes interviews and background checks.

4The pre-interview CSS testing is carried out by Applicant Testing Services Inc. (“ATS”) under a licensing agreement with the Ministry.

5The applicant failed to meet the required hearing acuity standard when his hearing was tested as part of the Stage 1 pre interview process. Consequently he failed to obtain a Certificate of Results that would allow him to apply to a police service that subscribes to the CSS assessment process.

6The applicant alleges that the hearing standard required by the CSS is discriminatory in that he is of the view that his hearing is good and sufficient to carry out the duties of a police constable. This applicant is, in effect, challenging whether the hearing acuity requirements for a police constable under the CSS are, in fact, bona fide occupational requirements.

7The applicant filed a number of documents related to his Stage I interview process including documents obtained from ATS to indicate that he met the standards for the PATI, WCT, PREP, BPAD and vision tests, but not his hearing test. The applicant disclosed additional documents from ATS and an independent audiologist that indicated that as part of the ATS hearing assessment process the applicant had the opportunity to have his hearing assessed by an independent audiologist who tested the applicant’s hearing and confirmed that the applicant failed to meet the required CSS hearing standard.

REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

8The applicant requests an order for the production of his complete file from ATS. According to the applicant his file would include his first and second PATI test (he did not meet the required standard on his first PATI test) his WCT, PREP and B-PAD tests and all the documentation he provided to ATS by email and fax and all the documents ATS provided the applicant by email.

9The standard for ordering the production of documents in a human rights proceeding is “arguable relevance”. It has been stated that this is not a particularly high bar. However there must be some relevance and the party seeking production must demonstrate a nexus between the information or document sought and issues in dispute before the Tribunal: Neusch v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) (2002), 2002 CanLII 46508 (ON HRT), 43 C.H.R.R. D/171 (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry), at para. 38.

10I am not satisfied that the requested documents are related to the issue in dispute which is whether the hearing standards required under the CSS process are a bona fide occupational standard. I already have before me materials to indicate what those standards are and the results of the applicant’s hearing tests. The applicant has not demonstrated that documents related to how he performed on the other pre-interview tests or documents exchanged between ATS and the applicant other than the materials that are already before me are arguably relevant to the issues I will need to determine. Accordingly, the applicant’s request is denied.