Patricia White v. Amherstburg Police Service, 2013 HRTO 1894

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Patricia White

Applicant

-and-

Amherstburg Police Service

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: November 14, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1894

Indexed as: White v. Amherstburg Police Service

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondents infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code. The allegations in the Application relate to certain interactions the applicant had with police officers from in or around 2010 to 2012. In addition, the Application alleges that certain police officers made inappropriate comments about the applicant and/or her mental disabilities to one or more of the applicant’s acquaintances and to the applicant’s employer and/or coworkers.

2The Application named the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) as a respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal delivered a copy of the Application to the OPP and directed it to file a Response.

3In its Response to the Application, the OPP submits that the allegations in the Application do not relate to incidents involving current or former members of the OPP. Accordingly, OPP submits that the Application should be dismissed as against the OPP.

4In her Reply, the applicant states that she filed her Application against the OPP because she mistakenly believed that one of the officers complained about in her Application, Officer O’Brien, “belong[ed] to the OPP Foundation”. The applicant now states that Officer O’Brien “does not belong to the OPP. So therefore the OPP was not involved.” In other words, the applicant appears to agree that the OPP is not a proper party to this Application.

5On October 10, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the applicant and the other respondent in this matter, Amherstburg Police Service, to indicate whether they consent to the removal of the OPP as a respondent to the Application, and if not, to provide written submissions explaining why they believe the OPP is a proper party to this proceeding.

6In its submissions, the respondent Amherstburg Police Service takes the position that the OPP should be removed as a party to the proceeding.

7The applicant has not provided written submissions in response to the October 10, 2013 CAD and the time for doing so has now passed. Accordingly, as indicated in the CAD, this issue is to be determined based on the information before the Tribunal.

8The Tribunal has held that in order for a named respondent to be a proper party to the proceeding, among other things, there must be allegations against the respondent that, if true, could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code: Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513 at para. 12; Tyrell v. Lake Promenade Apartments, 2010 HRTO 1846.

9In this case, given that the alleged incidents giving rise to the Application do not appear to involve current or former members of the OPP, there are no allegations in the Application that, if true, could lead to a finding that the OPP infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code. Accordingly, the OPP is not a proper respondent to the Application.

10The OPP is removed as a party to the proceeding and the style of cause amended accordingly.

11I am not seized of this matter.