David Butt

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed requests by the complainant and the Commission for the production of records relating to other complaints of racial discrimination against the personal respondents, who are civilian court officers.

Applying the principles from a concurrent decision, the Tribunal ordered the records produced to the Tribunal for review prior to disclosure to balance probative value against privacy interests.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of officer badge numbers and a photograph of the complainant, but declined to order the production of correctional officers' names due to security concerns.

The Commission and the complainant sought the production of information in police files about allegations by third parties of discrimination by the respondent police officers.

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of colour, creed, place of origin, and race, including physical assaults and harassment.

The Tribunal considered the application of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. McNeil regarding the production of police disciplinary records.

The Tribunal found that the requested records were arguably relevant as similar fact evidence.

To balance the potential probative value against the prejudicial effects and privacy interests of the officers and third-party complainants, the Tribunal ordered the Chief of Police to produce the records to the Tribunal for review prior to determining whether they should be disclosed to the parties.

The complainant requested that the adjudicator recuse himself from hearing the case, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the adjudicator had previously represented the Toronto Police Association, which sought to intervene in the proceeding.

The adjudicator dismissed the recusal request, finding that his prior role as a junior lawyer representing the Association did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias, especially given the standard one-year cooling-off period had passed.

The Tribunal also granted the Association's request to intervene on a limited basis regarding a production request.

The complainant and the Commission requested production of documents relating to complaints filed by the complainant under the Police Services Act.

The Toronto Police Association requested leave to intervene to make submissions on the production of these documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, finding it appropriate given the potential impact on the Association's members and its ability to provide their perspective.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of a loss of five days' pay imposed after he was found guilty of neglect of duty for failing to submit an Arrest Report prior to a fingerprint and court date.

The appellant argued the penalty was excessive and that the hearing officer erred by considering his entire disciplinary history rather than just a prior informal reprimand for the same misconduct.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services dismissed the appeal, finding that an officer's entire disciplinary history is a relevant consideration for progressive discipline and that the hearing officer applied the correct dispositional principles without manifest error.

The complainant, a former zone affiliate of the respondent employer bargaining agency, alleged that the respondent breached its duty of fair representation under section 151(2) of the Labour Relations Act by excluding it from the Mechanical Trade Bargaining Committee (MTBC).

The complainant had withdrawn from full membership due to concerns over the involvement of non-union employers but sought continued participation in labour relations matters.

The Board found that the respondent acted arbitrarily by failing to properly consult with the complainant regarding negotiations.

The Board ordered the respondent to grant the complainant observer status at MTBC meetings, though it declined to order full voting rights.