S.M.S. v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1491

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

S.M.S. Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: October 7, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1491 Indexed as: S.M.S. v. Toronto Police Services Board

Written Submissions

S.M.S., Applicant Self-represented

Toronto Police Services Board, Respondent David Gourlay, Counsel

1This Application was filed on March 17, 2011, alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed, sex, family status and age.

2The applicant originally named two respondents in her Application. In an Interim Decision in this matter, SMS v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1546, following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as against one respondent and dismissed all allegations but one as against the respondent Toronto Police Services Board. Given what appeared to be a factual dispute between the parties, the Tribunal subsequently directed that a one day hearing be scheduled in order to address the one remaining issue from the Application, namely whether the respondent returned the applicant’s hijab to her or whether there were periods when it was removed by the respondent, other than for a search and a photograph, allegations which were addressed in the Interim Decision.

3The Tribunal has scheduled a one day hearing for this matter and the parties have indicated that they wish to participate in the Tribunal’s mediation/adjudication process.

4The applicant has subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (RFOP) in which she requests several orders from the Tribunal. She requests an order for permanent custody of her son, she requests an order for “financial rights”, alternately expressed as an order for financial help from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and as “monthly payments due to the hurt and injury to …dignity and self respect…” She also seeks an order for “removal” of her sister, who she identifies as a harasser, from her association and from her son’s association. Finally, she seeks an “order of particulars an Officer from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the equivalent advocacy”, a request which appears to be a request for an order that she receive legal assistance.

5The respondent filed its Response to the RFOP submitting that the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to make the requested orders, with the possible exception of an order for financial compensation should liability be found at the conclusion of the hearing.

6The applicant has also persisted in sending the Tribunal various requests for permission or for assistance in relation to matters in her personal and family life, often in relation to her efforts to care for and travel with her son. Tribunal staff has explained to the applicant that these are not matters which are before the Tribunal. The applicant’s RFOP appears to be an indication that the applicant continues to misunderstand the nature of the matters which will be dealt with by the Tribunal. To be clear, the only matter which the Tribunal will deal with at the hearing date scheduled in this Application is the one remaining allegation which is before it: whether the respondent returned the applicant’s hijab to her or whether there were periods when it was removed by the respondent, other than for a search and a photograph, allegations which were addressed in the Interim Decision.

7While the Tribunal appreciates the importance of the matters relating to her personal and family life, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to provide the applicant the orders she seeks in her RFOP, with the possible exception that if her request for an order for financial help is a request for an order for financial compensation for breach of the Code, a request she has already expressed and quantified in her Application, the question of appropriate remedy should such a breach be found, can be addressed at the hearing scheduled in this matter. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for orders is dismissed.

8The respondent has also filed an RFOP, in which it requests to amend its Response, as it indicates that “the facts have become clearer during the course of this application”. The amendment proposed by the respondent provides further information regarding the applicant’s hijab while she was in Toronto Police Service custody.

9The applicant has responded to the respondent’s RFOP, addressing some matters which were already dismissed in the above-noted interim decision in this matter, and providing what may be characterized as Reply to the further information contained in the respondent’s proposed amendment to the Response.

10The respondent’s RFOP is allowed and the proposed amendments now form part of its Response. The applicant’s response to the RFOP, to the extent it addresses the respondent’s amendments, is accepted as her Reply to the amendments.

ORDERS

11The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The applicant’s RFOP is dismissed.
2. The respondent’s RFOP to amend its Response is allowed, and the applicant’s Response to the RFOP is accepted as her Reply to the amended Response.

12I am not seized.