Khorsand v. Toronto Police Services Board
Toronto Police Services Board
Law Firm / Organization
City of Toronto
Toronto Police Chief James Ramer
Law Firm / Organization
City of Toronto
Yazdan Khorsand
Law Firm / Organization
Glen Chochla Professional Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Glen Chochla

Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Law Firm / Organization
St. Lawrence Barristers PC
Community & Legal Aid Services Program
Law Firm / Organization
Department of Justice Canada
Lawyer(s)

Nan Padmanathan

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

Steven Yu

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

Gabriel Reznick

Law Firm / Organization
Swadron Associates
Lawyer(s)

Lisa Leinveer

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

Danette A. Edwards

Law Firm / Organization
Haki Chambers Global
Lawyer(s)

Sujit Choudhry

Law Firm / Organization
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
Employment law
Appellant