Lauren Elliott

This is a costs endorsement following a successful constitutional application by the applicant against the Chief of Police, with no relief granted against the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB).

The applicant, self-represented, sought costs including fees and disbursements against both respondents.

The court declined to award costs against the TPSB due to the limited scope of relief sought against it and its role in assisting the court on a jurisdictional issue.

Against the Chief of Police, the court applied the two-part test from *Fong v. Chan* for awarding costs to self-represented litigants, requiring demonstration of time and effort doing lawyer's work and incurred opportunity cost by forgoing remunerative activity.

The applicant failed to demonstrate foregone remunerative activity, as his decision to pursue lower-paying part-time work predated the litigation and was a quality-of-life choice.

Therefore, no fees were awarded.

However, the court ordered the Chief of Police to pay the applicant's reasonable disbursements, as the applicant was successful in advancing constitutional rights in the public interest.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of a practice instituted by the Chief of Police requiring all individuals entering police headquarters to submit to a security search.

The applicant argued this violated his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, as it was a condition precedent to attending public meetings of the Toronto Police Services Board held in the building.

The court found that attending a public government meeting is protected expression and the searches infringed this right.

The court further held the infringement was not justified under s. 1 because the Chief of Police lacked statutory authority under the Occupiers' Liability Act or the Occupational Health and Safety Act to impose warrantless searches as a condition of entry to a public meeting.

A declaration was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age by a police officer who laid a Provincial Offences Act charge against him.

The applicant also filed a concurrent complaint with the OIPRD.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the OIPRD decision.

Relying on Supreme Court and Tribunal jurisprudence regarding the different interests at stake in police discipline proceedings versus civil claims, the Tribunal declined to defer the application.

However, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, noting a potential lack of evidence connecting the alleged adverse treatment to the prohibited grounds.