Stanley v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 2075

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ali Stanley

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service, Christopher Henschell and Frederic Toms

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: December 16, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 2075

Indexed as: Stanley v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ali Stanley, Applicant ) Lori Mishibinjima, Counsel

Toronto Police Services Board, )

Chief of Police of the Toronto Police ) Michele Wright, Counsel

Service, Christopher Henschell and )

Frederic Toms, Respondents )

1This Application was filed on November 21, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities because of race, colour and age.

2The applicant alleges that he was subjected to racial profiling when the two individual respondent police officers decided to stop the car he was driving and breached his privacy by disclosing his criminal record to the owner of the car. The Application was commenced as against the TAVIS Unit of the Toronto Police Service.

3The respondents filed a Response on May 13, 2013 denying the allegations. The Response indicates that the TAVIS Unit of the Toronto Police Service is not a legal entity and the proper respondent should be the “Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service”. The Response did not clarify the full name of individual respondent Constable Toms.

4On June 24, 2013, the respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) requesting the Tribunal order the Ministry of Transportation disclose the name and contact information for the registered owner of the car that the applicant was driving on the date of the incident in issue. The respondents submit that the order is not opposed by the Ministry of Transportation and provided correspondence confirming the same.

5In a previous Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal issued the following directions:

i. that the applicant file submission regarding the respondents’ request for disclosure of the vehicle owner’s identity and contact information;

ii. that the applicant file submissions regarding substituting “Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service” for the entity named in the Application as TAVIS Unit of the Toronto Police Service;

iii. that the respondents provide confirmation of the full and proper name of individual identified as respondent Constable Toms and were also directed to file any reply submissions.

6The parties have filed their submissions in accordance with the previous CAD.

IDENTITY OF RESPONDENTS

7The parties consent to the removal of the TAVIS Unit as a party and the amendment of the Application to reflect the proper respondents as the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service. As such, the style of cause is amended to reflect the same.

8The respondents have provided Constable Toms’ full name as Frederic Toms. As such, the style of cause is amended to reflect the same.

VEHICLE OWNERSHIP

9The applicant has provided the name and address for the vehicle owner.

10The respondents indicate they were also seeking an order from the Tribunal requiring the Ministry of Transportation to provide confirmation of the vehicle ownership information, specifically confirmation that the individual identified by the applicant is, in fact, the registered owner of the vehicle bearing licence plate number BPBB 922.

11In order to provide a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may, pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”), require a party or other person to produce any document and information. While the Tribunal has the power to order disclosure of any information at any stage of the proceeding, the sought after information must nevertheless be arguably relevant to the Application. Consequently, the party seeking production must demonstrate a nexus between the information sought and the facts or issues in dispute before the Tribunal: McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220.

12Further, fairness and due process require that the person affected by the disclosure request be provided with adequate notice and opportunity to address issues that may concern them, particularly when the disclosure may involve personal information. The Tribunal’s Rules require that the party seeking a request for an order provide notice of the request to individuals or organizations that may have an interest in the request. Rule 19.2 specifically states the party making a request for an order during proceedings is required to deliver a copy of the request to all parties to the proceeding as well as to any person who may have an interest in the request.

13As such, there are at least two issues which, in my view, would need to be determined before granting the order requested by the Ministry of Transportation to disclose the information, namely the identity of a third party who is the registered owner of a vehicle. First, is the requested disclosure arguably relevant to the matters in issue, and, second, is the third party entitled to notice of the request and an opportunity to make submissions prior to a decision being made disclosing information regarding a person’s ownership of a vehicle?

14Although the parties do not appear to dispute the arguable relevance of the sought after information, if the individual identified by the applicant is, in fact, the registered owner and that individual consents to the confirmation of this by the Ministry of Transportation, then the Tribunal may not be required to issue an order. Accordingly, the Tribunal directs the respondents to contact the individual identified by the applicant as the owner of the vehicle to request his assistance in providing such confirmation or his consent to Ministry of Transportation to provide such information.

15If the respondents are unable to obtain this assistance or consent, the respondents can renew their request for an order from the Tribunal requiring the Ministry of Transportation to provide such disclosure after establishing that the affected party has received adequate notice in accordance with Rule 19.2.

ORDERS

16On consent of the parties, the style of cause is amended to remove the TAVIS Unit and add the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service as respondents. The style of cause is also amended to add reflect the full name of Frederic Toms as the individual respondent.

17The respondents are directed to contact the individual identified as the vehicle owner to seek his assistance in obtaining confirmation that he is registered owner of the vehicle or his consent for the Ministry of Transportation to provide such information. If the respondents are unable to obtain this assistance or consent, the respondents can, in accordance with Rule 19, renew their request for a Tribunal order requiring the Ministry of Transportation to provide such disclosure.

18I am not seized