Riad v. Waterloo Regional Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 739

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ashraf Riad

Applicant

-and-

Waterloo Regional Police Services Board, Brian Etheridge and Anita Etheridge

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: May 31, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 739

Indexed as: Riad v. Waterloo Regional Police Services Board

APPEARANCES

Ashraf Riad, Applicant

Self-represented

Waterloo Regional Police Services Board, Respondent

Gary Melanson, Counsel

Brian Etheridge and Anita Etheridge, Respondents

Anita Etheridge, Representative

1The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondents discriminated against him in the provision of services because of race, colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin, and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).

2This Application arises from what, by all accounts, was a very acrimonious relationship between neighbours – that is, between the applicant and his family, on one side, and the personal respondents on the other. The applicant’s allegations are wide-ranging and relate to events that took place over the course of a period of approximately four years. As outlined more fully below, the applicant alleged that the personal respondents used their respective positions as a police officer and crown attorney to harass and threaten his family and to impede the peaceful enjoyment of their property. He also alleged that the organizational respondent (“WRPSB”) discriminated against him by failing to protect him and his family and by failing to properly address his complaints against the personal respondents.

3I recognize that the applicant strongly believes that the respondents discriminated against him in their dealings with him and his family for a number of reasons. His multiple attempts to raise his concerns in various forums attests to his resolve to do whatever he can to pursue the matter on behalf of his family. However, I find that most of the allegations set out in his Application must be dismissed.

4With the exception of one allegation against Mr. Etheridge, the allegations against the personal respondents must be dismissed on the basis that they do not fall within a social area covered by the Code or do not stand a reasonable prospect of success under the Code. The allegations against the WRPSB must be dismissed on the basis that they have no reasonable prospect of success under the Code. The one allegation against Mr. Etheridge that is not dismissed is the allegation that Mr Etheridge discriminated against the applicant when he ran immigration and criminal checks on him. This allegation must proceed to a hearing as it is necessary for the Tribunal to hear full evidence before determining whether Mr. Etheridge violated the Code in conducting these checks on the applicant.

Procedural Background to Application

5This Application has a long history at the Tribunal due to overlapping proceedings commenced by the applicant and due to jurisprudential developments in relation to the interpretation of s. 45.1 of the Code that occurred while the Tribunal was processing this Application. The history of the Tribunal’s treatment of the Application is summarized in Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 2088 and I will not repeat it in detail here.

6In addition to filing this Application, the applicant had sought a review by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (“OCPC”) of the WRPSB’s decision in a complaint he had made under the Police Services Act. The applicant also applied for a peace bond against the personal respondents under the Criminal Code. The OCPC upheld the WRPSB’s decision in relation to the applicant’s complaint. After hearing the testimony of seven witnesses over the course of six days, a Justice of the Peace concluded that the applicant did not have reasonable grounds to fear that the personal respondents would cause personal injury to him, his spouse or his children. Accordingly, she dismissed his application for a peace bond.

7In Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 2088, the adjudicator declined to dismiss this Application as he found that neither of the parallel proceedings begun by the applicant appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. In addressing the peace bond proceeding, the adjudicator noted that, although the Justice of the Peace made findings of fact in relation to many of the incidents raised in the Application, she made no legal findings related to the applicant’s discrimination allegations under the Code.

8As the adjudicator noted in the Interim Decision, the respondents had also filed a request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application as against the personal respondents on the basis that it does not fall under a social area covered by the Code. He held that this request to dismiss should be addressed by the adjudicator assigned to hear the Application on its merits. He also noted that the adjudicator assigned to hear the case would need to determine whether the Tribunal is bound by the findings of fact made by the Justice of the Peace.

9By Case Assessment Direction, I directed that the parties provide submissions at the outset of the hearing as to whether any of the allegations contained in the Application fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction on the basis that they do not relate to the social area of service provision. At the hearing, I also asked the parties to provide submissions on whether the Application, or any part of it, should be dismissed on the basis that it stands no reasonable prospect of success under the Code.

Factual Background

10The applicant and his family were neighbours of the personal respondents. Starting in 2007, tensions began to arise between the applicant and his family, on one side, and the personal respondents on the other. These tensions escalated over the following years until the applicant filed this Application in February 2010 and they continued thereafter until the personal respondents decided to sell their house and move. As a result of the dispute between the applicant, his family, and the personal respondents the applicant made several complaints to the WRPSB. The personal respondents also made at least one complaint to the WRPSB against the applicant.

11The WRPSB filed copies of numerous occurrence reports documenting the parties’ complaints as well as copies of various e-mails the applicant sent to WRPSB representatives. The parties also filed copies of photos and videos shot by the applicant, his family and the personal respondents on their cell phones in an effort to document the events about which they were complaining to the WRPSB. Based on this documentation, it appears that WRPSB officers took the view that the dispute between the applicant and the personal respondents was a dispute between neighbours. Various WRPSB officers concluded that the incidents complained of did not rise to the level of criminal activity and therefore did not warrant the laying of criminal charges against either side. In some instances, WRPSB officers issued warnings to both the applicant and the personal respondents. However, the WRPSB never laid any charges against the applicant, any members of his family, or the personal respondents.

applicant’s allegations

Allegations against personal respondents

12For the purposes of this Interim Decision, the applicant’s discrimination allegations against the personal respondents can be divided into the following three general categories: property-related allegations, harassment-related allegations, and allegations of unprofessional conduct and abuse of power.

13I note that the allegations listed below are only allegations at this stage as I have heard no evidence in relation to them. I note further that the Justice of the Peace who conducted the peace bond hearing in the appliant’s case made several findings of fact on allegations that are also contained in the Application. She assessed the credibility of the applicant in making some of those findings. Ultimately, she found that many of the alleged incidents claimed by the applicant either did not occur or did not occur the way he said they did. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Interim Decision, I assume that the applicant would be able to prove all of the facts relating to the allegations summarized below.

Property-related allegations

14The applicant alleged the personal respondents carried out a number of actions that had the effect of interfering with his enjoyment of his property. For example, he alleged the personal respondents caused damage to his property by flooding his backyard with swimming pool water, they impeded the quiet enjoyment of his property due to their snowblowing practices, they encroached upon his property, and they encouraged surveyors to trespass on his property.

Harassment-related allegations

15The applicant also made a variety of harassment allegations. For example, he alleged Mr. Etheridge used racial slurs against him and his family; stalked his teenage daughter; stared at his daughter as she got off the school bus; attempted to attack the applicant; provoked the applicant; attempted to entrap him; mentioned a revolver when yelling at the applicant; and took pictures and videos of the applicant’s family while laughing and raising his middle finger at them. He also alleged that Ms. Etheridge almost ran over the applicant’s daughters with her car.

Allegations re. unprofessional conduct and abuse of power

16The applicant also made a number of allegations that can be characterized as allegations of discrimination through unprofessional conduct or abuses of power by the personal respondents. For example, he alleged both of the personal respondents made false statements to investigating officers of the WRPSB in an effort to manipulate and influence the justice system. He alleged Mr. Etheridge ran criminal and immigration checks on him without legal justification. He alleged Mr. Etheridge disclosed his name and address to someone while on duty in order to gather more information on the applicant and his family. The applicant also alleged Mr. Etheridge sounded the siren on his police cruiser outside the applicant’s house and parked his car in front of the applicant’s house.

17With respect to Ms. Etheridge, the applicant alleged she used her position as crown attorney to intimidate his wife when she told her that she should retain a lawyer during a dispute over the property line between their properties. At the hearing, he also alleged Ms. Etheridge improperly pressured the Prosecutor who handled the peace bond proceeding into withdrawing the appeal of the Justice of the Peace’s decision in that proceeding.

Allegations against WRPSB

18The applicant alleged the WRPSB discriminated against him by failing to appropriately respond to his complaints against the personal respondents. He alleged the WRPSB downplayed his complaints and failed to protect him and his family because of their race, ethnic origin, creed and the other grounds listed in his Application.

Dismissal of allegations: No service area

Applicable law

19The Tribunal does not have the power to inquire into claims of discrimination about every relationship or interaction. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the social areas set out in the Code. In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to the provision of services contrary to s.1 of the Code.

20It is well established that the Code, including the definition of “services”, must be interpreted broadly and purposively. That said, the definition of “service” is not without limits. In several decisions, the Tribunal and the Divisional Court have found that a “service” must mean something of benefit that is provided by one person to another or to the public. See for example Braithwaite v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2005 HRTO 31, rev’d on other grounds Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2007 CanLII 56481 (ON SCDC) (“Braithwaite”) and Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390.

21The Tribunal has held that, for the area of “services” to be engaged, there must be some sort of service relationship between an applicant and a respondent and that mere interaction between them is not enough. See Cooper v. Pinkofskys, above at para. 10 and Padayachee v. Peel Children’s Aid Society, 2010 HRTO 709 at para. 12.

Findings

Property-related allegations

22Even if I were to assume, for the purposes of this Interim Decision, that the applicant could prove the facts relating to the property-related allegations summarized at para. 14 above, these allegations do not fall within the social area of services. The personal respondents carried out all of the alleged property-related actions on their personal time at home. None of these alleged actions relate to the provision of any kind of benefit to the applicant or the public. For these reasons, the allegations summarized at para. 14 above are dismissed.

Harassment-related allegations

23Likewise, even if I assume the applicant could prove the facts relating to the harassment-related allegations summarized at para. 15 above, these allegations do not fall within the social area of services under the Code.

24The applicant argued that police officers and crown attorneys should always conduct themselves with respect and courtesy towards members of the public. He submitted that police officers and crown attorneys are inextricably linked to the integrity of the justice system. He also argued that the fact that Mr. Etheridge was wearing a police T-shirt during some of the incidents converts them into a service relationship.

25I cannot accept that any of the above factors serve to bring the applicant’s harassment allegations within the social area of service provision. Just because police officers and crown attorney are public servants, that does not mean that everything they do in their lives is a service within the meaning of the Code. All of the applicant’s harassment-related allegations pertain to actions that the personal respondents carried out on their personal time at home. None of these alleged actions relate to any kind of service or benefit of any kind being provided to the applicant or the public. Therefore, these allegations are dismissed as they do not fall within the social area of services in s. 1 of the Code.

Allegations re. unprofessional conduct and abuse of power

26As summarized above, the applicant made a number of allegations that may be summarized as allegations of discrimination by way of unprofessional conduct and abuses of power. Some of these allegations relate to actions that the personal respondents carried out during their work time, whereas others relate to actions carried out on the personal respondents’ personal time.

27In my view, determining when the actions of a police officer will fall within the scope of services requires more detailed consideration than the actions of many other workers or professionals. The very nature of policing involves the provision of safety and security services to the public. However, I do not accept that everything a police officer does in the course of his or her job involves the provision of services. The determination of which actions constitute services and which do not is a fact-based assessment that requires close attention to the alleged actions being challenged.

28I find the allegation that Mr. Etheridge conducted criminal and immigration checks on the applicant falls within the social area of services. In my view, s. 1 of the Code does not require that a respondent be engaged in the provision of services directly to an applicant. While that is most often the case, the wording of s. 1 is framed broadly as it refers to the right to equal treatment “with respect to services”. Therefore, this language captures more than just the provision of services by one party to another. The Tribunal and courts have accepted that s. 1 of the Code applies to services that are being provided to the public. See Braithwaite, above. At the time that Mr. Etheridge carried out the checks on the applicant he was engaged in the provision of services to the public as he was following up on information that a third party had provided to him about the applicant.

29By contrast, I find that the applicant’s allegations that Mr. Etheridge sounded the siren on his police cruiser when arriving home and that he parked in front of the applicant’s house do not engage the social area of services. Even if Mr. Etheridge may still have been on duty when he carried out these actions, I find that Mr. Etheridge was not engaged in the provision of any service to the public or anyone else when he carried out those actions. The actions do not relate to Mr. Etheridge’s work duties as a police officer, nor do they relate to the provision of any benefit of any kind to the public in general or any individual in particular.

30I find the allegation that Ms. Etheridge told the applicant’s wife that she should retain a lawyer does not fall within the social areas of services. In essence the applicant is alleging unprofessional conduct by Ms. Etheridge or an abuse of her position as a Crown attorney. Even if I were to accept the applicant’s allegations against Ms. Etheridge as true and provable, they are not allegations of discrimination with respect to services. Ms. Etheridge and the applicant were neighbours. She provided no benefit of any kind to the applicant or anyone else when she carried out this action.

31I do not need to determine whether the two following allegations engage the social area of services because they must be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success under the Code:

a. the allegation that Mr. Etheridge disclosed the applicant’s name and address to someone he questioned while on duty; and

b. the allegation that Ms. Etheridge influenced the Prosecutor to withdraw the appeal in the applicant’s peace bond proceeding.

dismissal of allegations: no reasonable prospect of success

Applicable Legal Principles

32Under Rule 19A of the Code, the Tribunal has the power to dismiss allegations if they stand no reasonable prospect of success in terms of making out a violation of the Code. It is well established that the Code does not provide protections against unfair treatment that is unconnected to the grounds of discrimination listed in the Code. The Code also does not provide general protections against corrupt practices, breaches of professional standards, breaches of confidence or breaches of privacy that are unconnected to a ground of discrimination listed in the Code.

33To establish discrimination under the Code, it is not sufficient for an applicant to show that they are identified by one of the grounds listed in the Code and that they have experienced adverse treatment. In order to establish discrimination, it is necessary to link the adverse treatment experienced by an applicant to one or more of the Code grounds that apply to them. For purposes of applying the test of no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal requires an applicant to point to evidence available to him or her that has a reasonable prospect of establishing the required link between the adverse treatment being alleged and the grounds of discrimination that apply to the applicant.

34At the outset of the hearing, I sought submissions from the parties as to whether any portions of the Application should be dismissed on the basis that they stand no reasonable prospect of success. In considering whether allegations have no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal is not determining whether the applicant is telling the truth or assessing the impact of the treatment he or she experienced. The test of no reasonable prospect of success is determined by assuming the applicant’s version of the facts to be true unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary.

35However, accepting the facts alleged by the applicant does not include accepting the applicant’s assumptions about why he or she was treated adversely. The question that the Tribunal must decide when applying the no reasonable prospect of success test is whether there is likely to be any evidence available to the applicant that can reasonably connect the unfair treatment he or she experienced with a ground protected under the Code.

36As the Tribunal indicated in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 (“Forde”), for an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code.

Application to this case

Allegations against Mr. Etheridge re. checks and disclosure of personal information

37The allegation that Mr. Etheridge discriminated against the applicant by running immigration and criminal checks on the applicant without legal justification cannot be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. I am aware that Mr. Etheridge claims to have been acting on information provided by one of his neighbours when conducting the checks. He also submits that these checks do not amount to discrimination under the Code. In order to determine whether Mr. Etheridge violated the Code when he conducted the checks, the Tribunal must hear full evidence on the issue in a hearing.

38In my view, the allegation that Mr. Etheridge discriminated against the applicant by disclosing his name and address to someone while on duty has no reasonable prospect of success under the Code. Even accepting the applicant’s version of this incident as true and provable, it does not amount to discrimination under the Code. According to the applicant, Mr. Etheridge disclosed the applicant’s name and address to someone whose identity he checked while on duty. This person had allegedly helped Mr. Etheridge chase a suspect.

39Since the person had the same last name as the applicant’s wife, Mr. Etheridge asked the person if he knew the applicant and his wife and disclosed their address to the person. The applicant believes that Mr. Etheridge did so in order to gather information about him and his family. In the Application, the applicant himself characterizes this incident as an invasion of privacy and misconduct while on duty. The issue before me is not whether the incident amounts to either of these things. The issue before me is wheher there is a reasonable prospect that the incident amounted to discrimination under the Code.

40Taken at its highest, this is an allegation of abuse of power, unprofessional conduct or breach of privacy. In my view, the incident does not involve differential treatment linked to a Code ground. The applicant has not pointed to any information that could reasonably show that, in taking the above actions, Mr. Etheridge was treating the applicant differently because of his race, ethnic orgin, creed or any other ground listed in his Application. As such, the allegation is dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success under the Code.

Allegation against Ms. Etheridge re. interference in appeal

41I find that the applicant’s allegation that Ms. Etheridge discriminated against the applicant by improperly influencing the Prosecutor to withdraw the peace bond appeal stands no reasonable prospect of success. The Crown initially appealed the Justice of the Peace’s decision but subsequently withdrew the appeal. The applicant strongly believes that Ms. Etheridge intervened in order to secure the withdrawal of the appeal. This allegation is purely speculative. The applicant has not pointed to any evidence reasonably available to him to support this allegation of interference. More to the point, he has pointed to no evidence that could reasonably show that any interference was carried out, even in part, due to his race, ethnic origin, creed or any of the other grounds listed in the Application. As a result, this allegation against Ms. Etheridge must be dismissed.

Allegations against WRPSB

42I also find that the applicant’s allegations that the WRPSB discriminated against him by improperly dealing with his complaints against the personal respondents also stand no reasonable prospect of success under the Code. The applicant claims that the WRPSB did not take appropriate steps to protect him and his family and to respond to his complaints about the personal respondents. He also claims that various WRPSB officers acted more quickly and decisively with respect to Mr. Etheridge’s complaints than they did in relation to his complaints. However, even if I were to accept these claims as true and provable, they are not enough to establish discrimination under the Code. The issue before me is whether there is a reasonable prospect that the respondent’s actions or inactions are linked to the grounds listed in the Application.

43At the hearing, I asked the applicant what evidence he intended to rely upon at a hearing to show that the actions or inactions of the WRPSB were linked to his race, ethnic origin, creed or any other ground listed in his Application. The applicant stated that, a police officer who responded to one of his complaints told him that “in Canada” what he was complaining about did not amount to crimininal harassment. That statement was made on January 21, 2010. He also stated that a different police officer asked him what his background or ethnic background was. This was over a year and a half later on September 20, 2011. The applicant also referred to statements that Mr. Etheridge allegedly made when he was interviewed by the police. According to the applicant, Mr. Etheridge told the police that, in the applicant’s country of origin, they treat police officers as second class citizens and keep them in compounds.

44In addition, the applicant pointed to the fact that three police officers attended at his house on a religious holiday in January 2010 to speak to him about a complaint that Mr. Etheridge made that day. The applicant believes that the police would have arrested him had he not showed them a video he recorded of his interaction with Mr. Etheridge. The police officers who attended at the applicant’s home that day did not charge him but instead issued warnings to him and to Mr. Etheridge. The applicant later found out that the warning issued to him appears on the WRPSB’s database as a notice of negative contact. He claims that this shows differential treatment as between him and Mr. Etheridge and that this differential treatment is linked to his race, creed, place of origin or the other grounds listed in his Application.

45I have carefully considered this information in light of the documentation and videotapes submitted by both parties. In my view, the information provided by the applicant is insufficient to reasonably establish a link between the WRPSB’s actions or inactions and the grounds listed in his Application. In other words, the evidence he pointed to has no reasonable prospect of establishing that the various police officers who responded to his complaints did not deal appropriately with them due, even in part, to his race, ethnic origin, creed or any other ground listed in his Application.

46In my view, it is important to consider the context of the applicant’s allegations against the WRPSB. The applicant had made multiple complaints to the police about the personal respondents. The personal respondents also made one or more complaints against him. A review of the documentation shows that, after speaking with the parties, the various police officers who responded to these complaints took the view that the incidents related to a dispute between neighbours and did not rise to the level of criminal conduct.

47It also appears that the various officers responding to the applicant’s complaints may also have taken the view that the applicant was misusing police resources by making complaints about what was, in essence, a heated dispute between neighbours. Even if the different officers responding to the applicant’s complaints were wrong in that assessment, such an error does not, by itself, amount to a violation of the Code. In order to make out a violation of the Code, there must be evidence that has a reasonable prospect of linking the actions or inactions of the WRPSB or its officers to the grounds of discrimination listed in the Application.

48In my view, the fact that an officer told the applicant that “in Canada” the personal respondents’ conduct did not amount to criminal harassment is insufficient to establish discrimination. The comment is not sufficient to demonstrate that the officer who made the comment was downplaying the alleged harassment because of the applicant’s place of origin or any other grounds listed in the Application. On its face, the statement simply conveys the officer’s assessment that, under Canadian law, the actions the applicant was complaining of do not constitute criminal harassment. Such a statement is insufficient to establish that the WRPSB downplayed the applicant’s concerns due to his race, creed or any other grounds listed in the Application.

49Simlarly, the fact that, over a year and a half later, an officer asked the applicant about his background or ethnic background is insufficient to reasonably establish that this officer downplayed the applicant’s complaints because of his ethnic origin or place of origin. I note that at times the applicant stated that the officer asked what his “background” was and at other times he says the officer asked what his “ethnic background” was. While asking about an applicant’s ethnic background might indicate that subsequent actions are linked to the Code, it is necessary in every case to consider the question in the context of the interactions between the parties. In the circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded that the question can reasonably establish a link between the applicant’s ethnic origin and the officer’s treatment of his complaint.

50The officer had responded to a complaint by the applicant in which the applicant alleged that Mr. Etheridge chased his wife and daughter by car and raised his middle finger at them. After obtaining statements from Mr. Etheridge and the applicant’s wife, the police officer issued a warning to both families to stay away from one another. A staff sergeant reviewed the statements and a video submitted by the applicant and similarly concluded that there was no evidence that could support a charge, discipline or sanction against Mr. Etheridge. In this context, I am not persuaded that the fact that one of the police officers asked the applicant about his ethnic background has a reasonable prospect of establishing that the officer failed to take the applicant’s complaint seriously, even in part, due to his ethnic origin, race, creed or any other ground listed in his Application.

51Likewise, any statements made by Mr. Etheridge when he was interviewed by WRPSB investigating officers cannot reasonably establish that the WRPSB’s actions or inactions in this case were linked to any ground listed in his Application. The applicant appears to be referring to a statement Mr. Etheridge made to the effect that the applicant had told him several times that police officers should live in designated neighbourhoods rather than living where they want. The applicant speculates that Mr. Etheridge’s comments influenced the WRPSB and led them to downplay his complaints. This is pure speculation on the applicant’s part. The applicant has pointed to no evidence he could advance at a hearing that could reasonably show that the WRPSB was influenced in any way by Mr. Etheridge’s comment or that the comment in any way supports a link between the WRPSB’s actions and the applicant’s ethnic origin, race, creed or any other ground listed in his Application.

52The fact that three officers attended at the applicant’s house on a religious holiday is also insufficient to establish discrimination in this case. I understand that the applicant was unhappy to have the police officers appear at his door as he and his family were marking a religious holiday. However, this was the day on which Mr. Etheridge had made a complaint against the applicant based on an interaction they had earlier in the day. In these circumstances, the fact that police officers attended at the applicant’s house to question him on a religious holiday is insufficient to establish discrimination.

53The fact that the applicant has a record of negative contact as a result of the incident is something I have carefully considered. The applicant believes the record of negative contact due to the warning he received that day shows differential treatment as he believes that Mr. Etheridge did not receive a similar notation as a result of the warning he received. It is unclear whether Mr. Etheridge did receive a similar notation. It appears unlikely that he did since the none of the respondents claimed he did at the hearing.

54While this may establish differential treatment between the applicant and Mr. Etheridge, it does not establish that the differential treatment occurred, even in part, because of the applicant’s race, creed or any other ground listed in his Application. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the fact that the warning issued to the applicant appears as a record of negative contact is sufficient to establish a link to his race, ethnic origin, creed or any other ground listed in his Application. I note that implicit in the applicant’s submissions in relation to this incident and others is the suggestion that the WSRPSB treated Mr. Etheridge more favourably because he was one of its officers. Even if this were true and provable, it does not establish discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

55I understand that the applicant feels that the WRPSB did not do enough to respond to his complaints about the personal respondents. However, in my view, he has failed to point to evidence he would be in a position to call at a hearing that has a reasonable prospect of establishing that the WSRPSB or any of the various officers who responded to his complaints, treated them inappropriately due to his race, creed, or any other Code ground.

order

56For the reasons set out above, all of the allegations contained in the Application are dismissed except for the following:

a. The allegation that Mr. Etheridge discriminated against the applicant when he ran criminal and immigration checks on him.

b. Mr. Etheridge shall remain as a respondent to the application as his conduct is central to this allegation. The WRPSB shall also remain as a respondent because, as Mr. Etheridge’s employer, it may also be liable for Mr. Etheridge’s actions if they are found to violate the Code.

c. The Registrar shall schedule a one day hearing for the parties to present evidence in relation to this allegation.