) ) ANGELA MORGAN Applicant – v. –, 2017 ONSC 2629

CITATION : Morgan v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 2629 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 354/16 DATE: 20170427 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT NORDHEIMER, TAYLOR and MATHESON JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) ANGELA MORGAN Applicant – and – HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO and DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE Respondents ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Angela Morgan, in person Nathaniel Marshall and Alexander Sinclair , for the Respondent, Durham Regional Police Service Sabrina Fiacco , for the Respondent, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ) HEARD at Toronto: April 27, 2017 NORDHEIMER J. (orally): [ 1 ] Ms.

Morgan seeks judicial review of a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal that found that the respondent, Durham Regional Police Service, did not discriminate against the applicant when its officers took her into custody under the Mental Health Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. M.17 . [ 2 ] On April 11, 2013, the applicant, who suffers from both bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia, was experiencing significant mental health issues. The applicant had been communicating with her daughter via text messages, suggesting that she was suicidal.

As a result of the daughter’s concerns, she contacted the Durham Regional Police to attend at the applicant’s residence. [ 3 ] The Durham Regional Police dispatched three officers to attend at the applicant’s residence, including a designated mental health response officer. The officers had difficulty communicating with the applicant. [ 4 ] While at the residence, one of the officers reviewed the text messages that the applicant had exchanged with her daughter. These text messages confirmed the concern that the applicant might be suicidal.

The officers then spent approximately one hour trying to convince the applicant to voluntarily attend for treatment. The applicant refused. When the officers became concerned for the applicant’s safety, she was taken into custody and taken to the hospital for treatment. [ 5 ] The standard of review applicable to a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal is reasonableness. The “highest degree of deference” is accorded to the Tribunal’s decisions, both with respect to the facts and with respect to its application of the Human Rights Code , R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19: Toronto (City) Police Service v.

Phipps , 2012 ONCA 155 (CanLII) , [2012] O.J. No. 2601 (C.A.) at para. 10 . [ 6 ] The applicant’s matter was heard over two days. The reasons of the Tribunal set out that the applicant was allowed a full day to give her evidence, uninterrupted, save for the occasional question by way of clarification. The applicant disputes that this happened. However, the applicant cannot point to any independent evidence in support of her contention and the details in the reasons strongly suggest that the Tribunal heard much from the applicant about her complaints.

There is no basis for us to conclude that the reasons of the Tribunal are defective in this respect. [ 7 ] In addition, one of the officers who attended at the applicant’s home gave evidence, and the 911 call by the applicant’s daughter was played. There was also documentary evidence filed. [ 8 ] The Tribunal gave very detailed reasons for its conclusion. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence fairly and completely. In the end result, the Tribunal concluded that discrimination had not been shown because the Tribunal accepted that “at the moment that the applicant was apprehended, there was cause to do so” (para. 55).

[ 9 ] The applicant has been unable to show any defect in the proceedings, or in the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. In particular, the applicant has been unable to show that the decision reached by the Tribunal is an unreasonable one. Consequently, there is no basis for this court to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision. [ 10 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. COSTS [ 11 ] I have endorsed the Application Record as follows: “This Application is dismissed.

In all of the circumstances the court exercises its discretion not to make any order as to costs including of the motion before Horkins J.” ___________________________ NORDHEIMER J. I agree ___________________________ TAYLOR J. I agree ___________________________ MATHESON J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 27, 2017 Date of Release: May 5, 2017 CITATION : Morgan v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 2629 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 354/16 DATE: 20170427 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT NORDHEIMER, TAYLOR and MATHESON JJ.

BETWEEN: ANGELA MORGAN Applicant – and – HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO and DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE Respondents ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NORDHEIMER J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 27, 2017 Date of Release: May 5, 2017