J.M. v. Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 1136

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

J.M. as represented by his litigation guardian K.M.

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board

and Joshua Irwin

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: September 1, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1136

Indexed as: J.M. v. Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

J.M. as represented by his litigation guardian K.M., Applicant

Grace Vaccarelli, Counsel

Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, Respondent

Stephen Maio, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend his Application.

2In the Application, the applicant’s litigation guardian alleged that the respondent discriminated against the applicant because of his race, colour, sex and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondents subjected him to racial profiling. In the Application, the applicant sought a monetary remedy, the removal of the applicant’s personal identifying information from any of the respondent’s databases, and certain other public interest remedies including the development of policies on the collection and retention of data.

3The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) on July 12, 2017 in which he requested to amend the public interest remedy sought in the Application. The remedy requested builds on the public interest remedy requested in the Application.

4The respondent opposed the applicant’s Request. The respondent acknowledged that the Tribunal may permit applicants to amend the remedies they are requesting so long as the nature, reasons and timing of the request is appropriate. However, the respondent submitted that the remedy sought by the applicant is systemic in nature and would not be appropriate based on the allegations in the Application. The respondent submitted that allowing the amendment would unnecessarily add to the length and complexity of the proceeding.

Finding

5I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s request to amend his Application. The Tribunal regularly grants requests to amend remedies at least up to the date of the hearing. The respondent may make its submissions on the appropriateness of the remedies sought at the hearing. In addition, the Vice-chair assigned to hear this case on the merits may seek the parties’ submissions on the issue of bifurcation at the outset of the hearing.

ORDER

6For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request to amend the remedy sought in the Application is granted. The applicant’s remedial request is amended to add the remedy set out in the applicant’s July 12, 2017 Request.

7I am not seized of this case.