Adore v. Toronto Police Service Board, 2013 HRTO 990

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kirk Adore Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Service Board, Officer Ruttner and Officer Taylor Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: June 4, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 990 Indexed as: Adore v. Toronto Police Service Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kirk Adore, Applicant Self-represented

Toronto Police Services Board, Officer Ruttner and Officer Taylor, Respondents Michele Wright, Counsel

Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, Affected Party Naomi Calla, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race and colour contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application was originally filed as against the Toronto Police Services, two named police officers and BMO Field.

2The applicant alleges that on September 17, 2011, he was subjected to discrimination and harassment by the respondent police while he was waiting outside of Gate 1 of BMO Field. The applicant claims that, in part because of alleged video footage of the grounds around BMO Field, the respondent police wrongly accused him of attempting to "scalp" tickets and treated him in a demeaning and intimidating manner.

3Counsel for BMO Field filed a Request for Summary Hearing on the basis that BMO Field is a business name and not a legal entity. The submissions indicated that BMO Field is located in Exhibition Place, which is owned by the City of Toronto and managed by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, a City board.

4The applicant filed a Response to BMO Field's request stating that he had no objection to the removal of BMO Field as a respondent. The applicant explained that he had intended to name the employer of the security guards he dealt with, which he mistakenly thought was BMO Field. Counsel on behalf of the remaining respondents advised in writing that they had no objection to Application being dismissed against BMO Field.

5Accordingly, by way of Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 260, the Tribunal determined that, in light of the apparent mistake made by the applicant and the general agreement by the parties, it was appropriate to remove BMO Field as a respondent to the Application.

6On March 28, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings ("RFOP") asking that the Tribunal order the City of Toronto to identify the security company used at BMO Field or that the City provide confirmation that it is the employer of the security personnel. The applicant states that he needs this information because, from the commencement of his Application, it has been his intention to name the employer of the security guards.

7On May 10, 2013, counsel for the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place filed a response to the applicant's RFOP confirming that the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place is the employer of the security guards. In its submissions, the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place asserts that it is unnecessary to identify the individual security guards and the individual security guards should not be added as respondents.

8The respondent police did not file any submissions with respect to this matter.

9Based on my review of the applicant's RFOP, it does not appear that the applicant was seeking to add the individual security guards. The applicant expressly indicated that he was seeking the identity and contact information of the employer of the security personnel in order to hold the proper legal entity responsible for the alleged discrimination and harassment.

10The Board of Governor has confirmed that it manages BMO Field and is the employer of the security guards. This information appears responsive to the applicant's RFOP and, as such, there does not appear to be any basis for the Tribunal to make any orders at this stage.

11A mediation scheduled for this Application was cancelled by the Tribunal as a result of the outstanding RFOP. In light of the fact the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place has confirmed that it is responsible for the security services at BMO Field, if the applicant intends to seek to add it or any other entity as a proposed respondent, the applicant is directed to take prompt steps in this regard. If the applicant no longer intends to request to add a proposed respondent, the applicant is directed to advise the Tribunal and other parties as soon as possible so that mediation can be rescheduled.

12I am not seized.