Strang v. Toronto Police Service, 2017 HRTO 1689

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Margaret Strang Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Service Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sophie Martel Date: December 20, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1689 Indexed as: Strang v. Toronto Police Service

APPEARANCES

Margaret Strang, Applicant No one appearing

Toronto Police Services, Respondent Natalie Salafia, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on April 25, 2017. She alleges discrimination with respect to employment, membership in a vocational association and, goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed, sex, sexual solicitation or advances, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, family status, marital status, age and reprisal or threat of reprisal.

BACKGROUND

2To the extent that the Application can be understood, it alleges that a number of police officers assaulted, tortured, raped, harassed, bribed and illegally detained the applicant on a number of different occasions. The respondent submits that the Application is vexatious and has no reasonable prospect of success.

3On August 25, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing that a summary hearing be held by conference call to hear arguments on whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

4On September 14, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties confirming that a summary hearing by teleconference would take place on December 1, 2017 commencing at 9:30 a.m. The Notice was delivered to the applicant by mail at the last address she provided to the Tribunal and was not returned as undeliverable. I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing.

5On November 30, 2017, the eve of the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment of the summary hearing in order to obtain legal advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. I denied the adjournment. The Tribunal only grants last minute adjournments in extraordinary circumstances and does not grant adjournment requests for the purposes of consulting counsel. See the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments. The Tribunal therefore advised the parties that the hearing would proceed as scheduled on December 1, 2017.

6The applicant was not on the conference call at the commencement of the scheduled hearing. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

7At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not on the conference nor had she communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.

8In the circumstances, the Application was dismissed at the hearing on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.

9This is the third time that this applicant’s Applications have been dismissed as abandoned: Strang v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services), 2017 HRTO 1467, and Strang v. Ontario (Ministry Attorney General), 2017 HRTO 1686 "Attorney General".

10The respondent’s summary hearing materials included decisions in respect of the applicant’s claims in other proceedings. The Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) declared the applicant a vexatious litigant in Strang v. OPSEU, 2017 CanLII 34805 "OPSEU" (ON LRB). The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s claim against multiple defendants, including some of the police officers named in this Application, as being frivolous: Strang v. City of Toronto, 2017 ONSC 1622 "Toronto".

11The applicant therefore has a history of initiating proceedings against multiple respondents in multiple forums. The Superior Court characterized her allegations as “bald, heinous” and bearing the “hallmarks of querulent litigant”. See Toronto, above, at para 2.). The OLRB and this Tribunal have noted that the applicant refuses to abide by their rules and processes. See OPSEU, above at para. 11 and Attorney General, above at para. 11.

12In the future, the Tribunal may wish to seek submissions on whether it should declare the applicant a vexatious litigant in the event of similar applications.

ORDER

13The Application is dismissed.