Khorsand v. Toronto Police Services Board

Firms involved

City of Toronto, Glen Chochla Professional Corporation, Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services, Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall LLP/s.r.l., St. Lawrence Barristers PC, Department of Justice Canada, Community & Legal Aid Services Program, HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO), ARCH Disability Law Centre, Swadron Associates, Black Legal Action Centre, Haki Chambers Global, Mani Kakkar Law
Toronto Police Services Board
Law Firm
City of Toronto
Lawyer(s)

Michele Brady

Rali Anguelova

Toronto Police Chief James Ramer
Law Firm
City of Toronto
Lawyer(s)

Michele Brady

Rali Anguelova

Yazdan Khorsand
Law Firm
Glen Chochla Professional Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Glen Chochla

Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police
Law Firm
Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services
Lawyer(s)

Keegan Soles

Sharon Wilmot

Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
Law Firm
Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall LLP/s.r.l.
Lawyer(s)

Jessica Barrow

Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Law Firm
St. Lawrence Barristers PC
Lawyer(s)

Saad Gaya

Abby Deshman

Community & Legal Aid Services Program
Law Firm
Department of Justice Canada
Lawyer(s)

Nan Padmanathan

Law Firm
Community & Legal Aid Services Program
Lawyer(s)

Steven Yu

Mental Health Legal Committee/HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario/ARCH Disability Law Centre
Law Firm
HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO)
Lawyer(s)

Ryan Peck

Robin Nobleman

Law Firm
ARCH Disability Law Centre
Lawyer(s)

Gabriel Reznick

Law Firm
Swadron Associates
Lawyer(s)

Lisa Leinveer

South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario/Black Legal Action Centre
Law Firm
Black Legal Action Centre
Lawyer(s)

Danette A. Edwards

Law Firm
Haki Chambers Global
Lawyer(s)

Sujit Choudhry

Law Firm
Mani Kakkar Law
Lawyer(s)

Mani Kakkar

Facts:

  • Issue: Khorsand applied to be a special constable with Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) in 2020. Previously employed in this role, he failed the Toronto Police Service (TPS) pre-screen background check in 2021.
  • Disclosure Requests: Khorsand sought reasons for his failure from TPS and TCHC and filed a Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) request. Disclosed records showed nine interactions with TPS, none criminal, with racial descriptors in some.

Judicial Review:

  • Claim: Khorsand alleged procedural unfairness due to TPS's lack of disclosure regarding the background check failure.
  • Divisional Court: Split decision. The majority ruled the decision subject to judicial review and procedurally unfair; the dissent deemed it private and non-reviewable.

Court of Appeal Decision:

  • Majority: The pre-screening decision is public and subject to judicial review due to its connection with law enforcement and potential systemic discrimination. TPS must provide reasons and allow Khorsand to dispute findings.
  • Dissent: The decision is a private employment matter, non-reviewable, and concerns about disclosing sensitive information were noted.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed. The court ruled the pre-screening decision was not sufficiently public for judicial review, emphasizing its discretionary and employment-related nature.

No monetary award specified.

Court of Appeal for Ontario
COA-23-CV-0665
Labour & Employment Law
Appellant