HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mohamed Yussuf
Applicant
-and-
Ottawa Police Services Board and Joshua R. Pulfer
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Indexed as: Yussuf v. Ottawa Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Mohamed Yussuf, Applicant
Michelle Mulgrave, Counsel
Ottawa Police Services Board and Joshua R. Pulfer, Respondents
David Patacairk, Counsel
1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is allowing the applicant to amend his Application.
2The Application alleges discrimination with respect to police services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant maintains he was subjected to racist treatment when the vehicle he was driving was stopped by police. The respondents deny that any of their actions were tainted by any of the Code grounds cited by the applicant.
3A hearing of the Application is scheduled to begin on September 16, 2014. The applicant has made a request for the production of arguably relevant documents and to amend his Application to include a public interest remedy. At present the only remedies sought by the applicant are compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, as well as the costs of damage to the rental vehicle he was driving at the time.
4The public interest remedy sought by the applicant is expressed in the request as follows:
The Applicant seeks to add a public interest remedy in the form of human rights training and a human rights policy concerning racial profiling, interacting with the Somalian community, and creed as it relates to the Muslim community. Officers from the Direct Action Response Team (DART) unit were involved in the incident on January 25, 2012. The requested public interest remedy is to apply to all the officers involved in the incident on January 25, 2012 and the DART unit.
5The respondents oppose this request on the grounds that it is being brought late in the proceeding and the applicant has not explained why the requested remedy is so broad as to include the entire unit, as opposed to the individual officers involved in the incident with the applicant. They maintain that allowing the amendment would unduly lengthen the hearing as the respondent would be obliged to lead evidence to refute the allegation that bias is institutionalised in the unit.
6I am not of the view that allowing the amendment would substantially lengthen the hearing. The allegations in this case focus on events which are limited in time and place. There are not a lot of witnesses or documents in this case.
7Based on the applicant’s witness statement, I understand that he will lead evidence as to the impact he claims that these events had on him. If the Tribunal finds that the respondents’ actions were discriminatory, then its decision on what is an appropriate remedy will be based on, and circumscribed by, the evidence that has been led by the parties. If the Tribunal finds for the applicant, it may well determine that public interest remedies are appropriate, but it does not appear to me from the document disclosure and witness statements that this inquiry will, in the words of the respondents, “dramatically lengthen the nature of the proceeding”. For these reasons the request to amend the Application is allowed.
8The applicant’s request also asks for production of a number of arguably relevant documents, including video and audio recordings. The respondents confirm that there are no video or audio recordings to disclose. Further, they have now disclosed their hearing documents to the applicant and the Tribunal and so it appears that the issue of document production no longer needs to be determined.
order
9The applicant’s request to amend his Application is granted.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of August, 2014.
“Signed by”
Paul Aterman
Vice-chair