Selwyn Pieters

The appellant filed a public complaint regarding a police officer's conduct during a traffic stop.

After the Chief of Police concluded the misconduct was not serious enough to warrant a hearing, the appellant requested a review by the Independent Police Review Director under section 71 of the Police Services Act.

The Director directed the Chief to serve a Notice of Hearing but explicitly instructed the Chief not to apply to the Board for a finding that the delay was reasonable under section 83(17), despite more than six months having passed.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges for noncompliance with section 83(17).

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the dismissal, finding that section 83(17) applies to the pre-charge period including a section 71 review, and failure to obtain the Board's opinion on the reasonableness of the delay resulted in a loss of jurisdiction.

The public complainant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing misconduct charges against a police officer due to noncompliance with the six-month delay provision in s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The respondent officer objected to the Independent Police Review Director participating in the leave application.

The Commission held that the Director has standing to participate in pre-hearing steps, including leave applications.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the interplay between the Director's oversight powers and the Police Services Board's obligations regarding delay raises issues of significant importance to the policing profession and the community.

The appellant, a children's residence operator, appealed a proposal to revoke its licence and brought a motion for confidentiality orders and a timeline order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the openness principle from Toronto Star v. AG Ontario, balancing it against the privacy interests of children.

The Tribunal granted orders protecting the identities of children and temporarily sealing Children's Aid Society records, but refused to anonymize the appellant's name, finding no significant privacy interest outweighed the openness principle for a regulated corporate entity.

The request for a 90-day timeline order was dismissed as a consent timetable was already in place.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination by the Toronto Police Service.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three requests for orders: the respondents' request to bifurcate the hearing, the applicant's request for CCTV footage from the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, and the OHRC's request for production of various police records.

The Tribunal granted the bifurcation request, ordering the hearing to proceed in three stages.

The applicant's request for CCTV footage was dismissed because the footage no longer existed.

The OHRC's requests for production were partially granted; however, the Tribunal found that section 95 of the Police Services Act prevented the disclosure of complaints made under Part V of that Act.

The Member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for teaching a long-term occasional assignment while his teaching certificate was suspended by a previous order of the Discipline Committee.

The Member failed to notify his employer of the suspension.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a five-month suspension of the Member's certificate, and publication of the decision with the Member's name.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Final Decision dismissing his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

He argued that the hearing process was unfair, particularly the use of a teleconference, and disputed the Tribunal's findings on timeliness and the employer's investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal noted that the parties had consented to the teleconference hearing and that the applicant was given a full opportunity to present his case.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add several allegations of discrimination and reprisal against the respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, allowing the applicant to add allegations of harassment and reprisal that occurred within one year of the application and were related to the original complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request to add older allegations relating to a previous supervisor, finding them out of time and distinct from the original application, with no good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant provided a physician's note confirming his inability to attend.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the illness of a party constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

During the pleadings stage, the applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking additional particulars and production of documents before filing his Reply.

The Tribunal denied the request for particulars, finding the respondents' Response was sufficiently detailed to allow for a meaningful Reply.

The Tribunal also denied the request for production as premature, noting that the Rules require disclosure only after a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing is issued.

The applicant, a police officer, sought to amend her human rights application against the police services board and the police association to include detailed allegations of sexual harassment, a poisoned work environment, failure to accommodate, and reprisal, and to add a personal respondent.

The Tribunal allowed some amendments, including those relating to disability, reprisal, and failure to investigate, but denied amendments that substantially changed the nature of the original application, such as adding the personal respondent for historical sexual harassment allegations.

The Tribunal also directed a summary hearing to determine if the allegations against the police association and certain other allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested an adjournment on the morning of the scheduled hearing due to the sudden and unexpected illness of its counsel.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the sudden illness, and ordered that the matter be rescheduled as soon as possible on a peremptory basis to the respondent.

The applicant alleged a poisoned work environment based on race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The respondent employer requested orders to dismiss allegations regarding two incidents for delay and to exclude proposed similar fact evidence from two witnesses.

The Tribunal struck the first incident as it occurred more than one year prior to the application and did not form part of a series, but allowed the second incident.

The Tribunal also excluded the proposed similar fact evidence, finding its prejudicial effect exceeded its probative value given the temporal disconnect from the main allegations.

The applicant, a Black high school student, alleged racial discrimination and reprisal against a shopping mall owner after two incidents involving security guards.

In the first incident, the applicant was asked to clean up garbage at a food court table, refused, swore at the guard, and was verbally banned from the mall.

In the second incident, the applicant returned to the mall, was arrested for trespassing, and escorted to the security office.

The Tribunal found that the security guards' actions were motivated by the applicant's behaviour and the enforcement of the trespass ban, not by his race, colour, or ethnic origin.

The application was dismissed.

The Ministry of Correctional Services and a non-party intervenor requested a publication ban on portions of an investigation report and minutes of settlement produced in the proceeding, citing privacy and the integrity of confidential settlements.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding insufficient evidence to override the strong public interest in open hearings and the need for transparent decision-making.

However, the Tribunal granted a request to redact the home addresses of Ministry personnel from the exhibits due to safety concerns.

The applicant sought production of records relating to allegations of discrimination at a correctional facility.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the respondent to produce redacted inmate records, finding them arguably relevant to the application.

However, the Tribunal denied the production of workplace discrimination and grievance records involving staff, as the applicant failed to establish a nexus to the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's request to bifurcate the hearing into individual and systemic phases, concluding it would not be an efficient way to proceed.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination in his treatment while in detention at Maplehurst Correctional Centre, specifically regarding disciplinary actions and solitary confinement for alleged misconduct.

The respondent raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the Superintendent's decisions in misconduct hearings are statutory decision-making functions and not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the Superintendent's function is overwhelmingly administrative rather than adjudicative, and therefore the misconduct decisions are 'services' within the meaning of the Code and are not immune from Code review.

The respondent's request for partial dismissal was denied.

The applicant, an inmate at a provincial jail, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and related grounds.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for a publication ban regarding his own identity, finding insufficient evidence that it would protect him from reprisal, but granted anonymization for his incarcerated witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for disclosure of potential inmate witnesses' names.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for disclosure of similar-fact evidence regarding other racial discrimination complaints at the facility, subject to an in camera review by the adjudicator to balance probative value against privacy interests.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the respondent's motion to strike the applicant's Statement of Fact and Remedies, instead permitting the applicant to file an amended Application.

The applicant, a former police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability (marijuana addiction).

Following his arrest on drug-related charges, the applicant resigned his employment and entered into a plea bargain.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant voluntarily resigned to secure a plea bargain and was not under duress.

The Tribunal held that permitting the applicant to resile from his resignation and challenge his criminal conviction in a human rights proceeding would amount to an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Police Services Board and Mike Earl.

The Toronto Police Association (TPA) requested non-party intervenor status, arguing that the remedies sought, including reinstatement, and a request for disclosure of personal information about TPA members, could affect its collective agreement and members.

The applicant opposed the request, citing delay and potential disruption.

The Tribunal found no undue delay and granted the TPA non-party intervenor status to address the disclosure request and remedies as they may affect the collective agreement and its members.

The complainant, a former police constable with the Peel Regional Police Services Board, sought to add the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) as a respondent to her human rights complaint.

The complaint alleged discrimination and reprisals by Peel after she left to join the OPP.

The Tribunal applied the Payne test and found that the facts alleged, if proven, could not lead to a finding that the OPP violated the complainant's rights under the Code.

Furthermore, adding the OPP at this stage would fundamentally alter the nature and scope of the complaint, contrary to the Tribunal's mandate to resolve matters fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

The request to add the OPP as a party was dismissed.