Michele Wright

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 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.

The applicant, Toronto Police Services Board, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal pending its application for judicial review.

The applicant argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Ontario Human Rights Commission referred the complaint to the Tribunal without providing an amended complaint or addressing the complainant's delay.

The Divisional Court found the applicant satisfied the three-part test for a stay, noting serious issues regarding procedural fairness and jurisdiction, and that proceeding before the Tribunal would render the judicial review moot.

The motion for a stay was granted and an expedited hearing for the judicial review was directed.