Mohamed Nemmour v. Toronto Police Services Board and Gerry McNeilly, 2013 HRTO 357

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mohamed Nemmour

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Gerry McNeilly

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 4, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 357

Indexed as: Nemmour v. Toronto Police Services Board

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 goods and services because of ethnic origin.

2The respondents have each filed a Response to the Application (Form 2). The applicant did not file a Reply (Form 3) to either Response.

The Police allegations

2In his Application (Form 1) the applicant provides no particulars of discrimination on the part of the Police Services Board, but references four complaints he had filed under the Police Services Act (PSA) to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). Attached to his Application are two of these complaints, one of which is ongoing.

3In its Response (Form 2) the respondent Police Services Board took a number of positions:

a. That the applicant has provided no particulars of discrimination on its part;

b. That if the allegations made in the 4th PSA complaint are allegations of discrimination on its part they have been appropriately dealt with in the OIPRD complaint;

c. That the Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success because there are no alleged acts of discrimination on its part;

d. That if the applicant is relying on the allegations contained in complaints 1, 2 and 3 under the PSA to which he refers, the incidents referred to in those complaints are untimely.

The OIPRD allegations

4The identified respondent is the Independent Police Review Director (the Director). In his Response (Form 2) the Director took the position that this Application as it relates to the Director should be dismissed for the following reasons:

a. There are no facts set out in the Application that support an allegation of discrimination by the Director;

b. There are no facts alleged in support of a claim of reprisal;

c. The Application is an abuse of process because it is a collateral attack on the decision of the OIPRD;

d. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with complaints about breaches of Charter rights that do not involve alleged breaches of the Code.

5The Director also argued that the Application as it relates to the first PSA complaint should be dismissed because it is out of time.

6As indicated the applicant did not respond to these requests that the Application be dismissed. In order to ensure the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of these preliminary issues, the applicant was directed in a Case Assessment Direction issued on February 7, 2013 to deliver and file a Reply (Form 3) settting out his responses to the submissions of the respondents, within 14 days of the date of the Direction failing which the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

7The applicant did not respond to this Direction or communicate with the Tribunal in any way although the time for doing so has passed. The applicant appears to have abandoned the Application and accordingly it is dismissed.