Surh v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 493

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Doug Surh Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Bradley Verspeeten Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Doug Surh Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Doug Surh Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: April 20, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 493 Indexed as: Surh v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Doug Surh, Applicant Self-represented

Toronto Police Services Board (2010-04964-I), Respondent Antonella Ceddia, Counsel

Toronto Police Services Board and Chris Dobbs (2010-06416-I), Respondents David A. Gourlay, Counsel

Toronto Police Services Board (2010-07698-I) and Bradley Verspeeten (2010-04964-I), Respondents Lisa C. Cabel and Naomi Calla, Counsel

1The applicant filed these three Applications between February and December 2010, alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, reprisal and sex, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). In an Interim Decision, 2014 HRTO 261, these Applications were consolidated.

2The applicant was directed in that Interim Decision to indicate whether he would attend an in-person hearing. On March 7, 2014, the Tribunal received confirmation from the applicant that he would attend such a hearing.

3On April 11, 2014, the applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) seeking a publication ban or, in the alternative, the use of initials (presumably his) and the following order: "All persons who know of complaint banned from communicating to all others."

4The applicant, however, has failed to establish why such a ban is necessary. He implies that he is at risk if others know about his "complaint," but there are already several published Decisions/Interim Decisions with his name on them. I am not prepared to accept at this juncture that the applicant is at risk as a result of his name being published.

5The applicant's request that persons who know of his complaints be banned from communicating with others is unworkable and, as pointed out by the respondents, could prevent the respondents from preparing for this hearing.

6The Tribunal sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties on March 4, 2015. The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) on March 17, 2015, asking for the following relief:

1. That PC Chris Dobbs be removed as an individual respondent to Application 2010-06416-I;
2. That another officer, PC Comeau, be added;
3. That the Applications be deferred pending the receipt of production of documents, information, etc. from the respondents;
4. That the Applications be deferred pending the return by the respondents to the applicant of money, assets, etc.

7The relevant parties are in agreement that PC Chris Dobbs is not appropriately named as a respondent in Application 2010-06416-I. Accordingly, he is removed as a respondent and the style of cause amended.

8With respect to the addition of PC Comeau, I am in agreement with the respondents' counsel in that Application that the applicant has an obligation to serve the Request on the individual he now wishes to name. The applicant's Form 23 does not state that he has done this. Until this individual is served and provided with an opportunity to respond, the Tribunal will not address the Request to add this respondent.

9The Notice of Hearing send out to the parties on February 28, 2015, sets out the timetable for production of documents and witnesses. This occurs after the Tribunal schedules a hearing in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure (in particular, Rules 16 and 17). The applicant has failed to establish why he needs this information in advance of the scheduling of the hearing.

10Likewise, the Tribunal has heard no evidence, and so is not in a position to determine whether the respondents have taken anything from the applicant which ought to be returned to him. In any event, the applicant has failed to establish why this step needs to be taken in advance of scheduling the hearing.

11On March 5, 2015, the applicant wrote that he cannot attend the hearing because the Tribunal had not responded to his request for a publication ban. He also stated that he cannot attend because he has received a "death threat" and has been banned from downtown Toronto by the officers involved in the matter set out in Application 2010-07698-I. Having heard no evidence, I cannot accept the applicant's assertion that he has been the recipient of a death threat. In any event, I would ask that counsel for the respondents in this matter confirm by April 27, 2015 that the applicant is not banned from attending a hearing to address the consolidated Applications in downtown Toronto. Once this is received, it is essential that the applicant confirm that he is prepared to attend an in-person hearing within two weeks of the receipt of counsel's confirmation.

12If the Tribunal does not receive this confirmation from the applicant that he is prepared to attend, it may dismiss these Applications as abandoned.

Order

13In sum, I have made the following orders and directions:

a. The applicant's request for a publication ban and/or anonymization is dismissed;

b. On consent of the parties, PC Chris Dobbs is removed as a respondent to this proceeding;

c. The Tribunal will not address the request to add PC Comeau as a respondent until such time it receives confirmation that a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) has been served on this individual and he has had an opportunity to make submissions;

d. The Tribunal will not defer scheduling the consolidated hearing of these Applications pending receipt by the applicant of the documents, material and information requested;

e. Counsel for the respondents in Application 2010-07698-I shall confirm by April 27, 2015 that the applicant is not banned from attending a hearing to address the consolidated Applications in downtown Toronto;

f. Once this confirmation is received, the applicant shall confirm that he is prepared to attend an in-person hearing within two weeks of the receipt of counsel's confirmation; and

g. In the event that the applicant advises the Tribunal and respondents that he is not prepared to participate in such a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss his Applications on the basis that the applicant has been abandoned.