Michele A. Wright

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, and ethnic origin, claiming the respondent refused to remove information from his police records.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a court security officer.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the telephone conference call hearing without explanation.

The Tribunal found the application was abandoned and dismissed it as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the identity of the security company used at BMO Field, intending to add them as a respondent to his human rights application alleging racial discrimination.

The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place voluntarily confirmed it is the employer of the security guards.

The Tribunal found no order was necessary as the requested information had been provided, and directed the applicant to promptly take steps if he intends to add a respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging racial discrimination in the provision of police services.

Due to a lack of clarity in the initial narrative, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

At the hearing, the applicant, having retained counsel, proposed to amend the application to provide specific details of an alleged discriminatory police stop and search.

The respondent consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal ordered that the application not be dismissed at this stage and directed the applicant to file an amended application.

In an interim decision during a human rights application alleging racial discrimination in a police traffic stop, the Tribunal ruled on several procedural and disclosure issues.

The Tribunal allowed amendments to the application, bifurcated the hearing, and denied a media request to record the proceedings.

On disclosure, the Tribunal ordered the production of certain police procedures and records check policies, but denied requests for note-taking and traffic stop policies.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' claim that records of a third-party police complaint were protected by statutory privilege under the Police Services Act, finding that HRTO proceedings are not 'civil proceedings' and fall within the 'law enforcement' exception to the secrecy provisions.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of race and colour by two police officers outside BMO Field.

BMO Field filed a Request for Summary Hearing to be removed as a respondent, arguing it is not a legal entity and no allegations were made against it.

The applicant consented to the removal, noting he mistakenly named BMO Field instead of the security guards' employer.

The Tribunal removed BMO Field as a respondent on consent.

This is a remedy decision following a finding that the respondent police officers discriminated against the applicant by making a derogatory comment during fingerprinting and by inappropriately contacting his employer (the Department of National Defence) about his arrest.

The applicant sought over $1.4 million in damages, primarily for lost wages, arguing the police call caused his termination.

The Tribunal found the employer conducted its own investigation and the police call did not cause the job loss, denying the wage loss claim.

The Tribunal awarded $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect based on the objective seriousness of the call and the subjective impact of the events on the applicant.

Claims for legal and transcript costs were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, alleging racial profiling during a traffic stop, brought a Request for an Order during a Proceeding seeking further disclosure and particulars from the respondent police services and officers.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of prior race-based complaints against the involved officers to the Tribunal for vetting, as well as documents relating to the TAVIS initiative and Project Charter.

The Tribunal denied the request for documents from the internal Police Services Act investigation, finding them not arguably relevant.

The Tribunal also permitted the respondents to call an additional witness identified late, finding no substantial prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming the '42 Division Police' as the respondent.

Counsel for the Toronto Police Services Board requested clarification on the proper respondent and an extension of time to file a response.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting it was inconsistent with previous rulings involving the same respondents.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause on its own motion to name both the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police, and ordered the respondents to file their response by the original deadline.

The complainant, an African Canadian man, alleged that police discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin during an undercover drug operation, his subsequent arrest, and his detention.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that race was a factor in the initial approach, the arrest, or the strip searches.

However, the Tribunal found that a police officer's comment about deportation during fingerprinting was discriminatory.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the police's decision to contact the complainant's employer to verify his identification, which deviated from usual protocol, was influenced by his race, colour, or place of origin.

The hearing was bifurcated, with a subsequent phase to address remedies and the liability of the Toronto Police Services Board.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on colour arising from a police stop and search.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with through a Police Services Act complaint.

The Tribunal found that the police complaints process, which included an investigation and review by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, constituted another proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the summary dismissal of his claim for negligent investigation against the Toronto Police Services Board.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial, accepting the police officer's affidavit detailing the reasons for laying charges.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the police relied on a constellation of factors and that the standard of a reasonable police officer is not one of perfection.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants challenged the City of Toronto's new municipal limousine licensing scheme, arguing the City exceeded its statutory authority and that specific provisions were arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's dismissal of the challenge.

The Court found that the City had broad authority under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to enact the by-laws, and there was no evidence of bad faith.

Furthermore, the impugned provisions, including a minimum fare requirement and vehicle ratio requirements, were rationally connected to legitimate municipal objectives such as consumer protection and regulating competition between the taxicab and limousine industries.

The complainant, alleging racial discrimination by police during an arrest for drug trafficking, requested the production of arrest records and recognizances for all individuals arrested in the same undercover operation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the complainant failed to demonstrate the arguable relevance of the records to his specific allegations of racial profiling and mistreatment.

The Tribunal also confirmed the bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination by police officers, the Tribunal ruled on preliminary issues.

The Tribunal held that findings of fact made by a criminal court judge in the course of acquitting the complainant could not be relied upon as binding in the human rights proceeding, as an acquittal does not establish facts for subsequent civil matters.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request for witness statements taken by the complainant's criminal lawyer, finding they remained protected by litigation privilege because the proceedings were related.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the limited production of the complainants' medical records and personnel files, subject to strict privacy conditions.

The complainant, a Black African man, alleged racial discrimination by the Toronto Police Services Board after being stopped while riding his bicycle and subsequently arrested for drug possession.

He claimed the initial stop was a pretext based on racial profiling and that he was physically assaulted by officers after fleeing.

The Tribunal found the police had a legitimate reason for the stop (no bicycle lights) and no ulterior motive.

The Tribunal also rejected the assault allegations, finding the complainant's injuries were consistent with a physical take-down after he attempted to flee.

The human rights complaint was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to classify the Bloor Street Transformation Project as a Schedule A/A+ project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, which exempted it from a full environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness and found the City's classification of the road and sidewalk reconstruction project to be reasonable.

The court also held that, in any event, the discretionary remedy of judicial review would be refused due to the applicant's delay in bringing the application, as construction had already begun and halting the project would prejudice the public interest.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, alleging racial discrimination during a police stop while riding his bicycle, sought production of various documents from the respondent police services board.

The Tribunal ordered the non-party Chief of Police to produce dispatch logs, use of force reports, and records of other cyclists stopped by the involved officers in the week prior to the incident, finding them arguably relevant.

Requests for records of other incidents involving the complainant and general police database searches were dismissed as irrelevant.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an order to withdraw from participating in the human rights complaint proceeding.

The complainant did not object but requested a 30-day adjournment to find legal counsel.

The Tribunal granted the Commission's request to withdraw, ordered the Commission to provide its disclosure file and hearing briefs to the complainant, and adjourned the hearing for 30 days to allow the complainant to seek counsel.

The applicant sought costs following an application for judicial review and a stay motion that were granted on consent.

The court rejected the Commission's proposed costs of $3,500 as inadequate.

Costs for the application and stay motion were fixed at $10,000, with an additional $1,500 awarded for the day's appearance.