Tribunal rules applicant lacks standing in case alleging discrimination in police investigation

THUNDER BAY – LEGAL NEWS – A Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision has dismissed a complaint against the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) that alleged systemic racism played a role in the police investigation into the 2017 death of Marlan Patrick Chookomolin.

The case, brought forward by the deceased’s father, Ron Chookomolin, and was rejected on the basis that he did not have the legal standing to pursue the application.

Background of the Complaint

Ron Chookomolin filed the application on November 2, 2018, under section 34(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, alleging that TBPS’s investigation into his son’s death was deficient due to systemic racism, inadequate training, and structural flaws within the police service.

He argued that these shortcomings reflected unfair practices in policing, particularly towards First Nations individuals.

However, in September 2024, the Tribunal requested additional submissions to determine whether the application fell within its jurisdiction.

The concern was that Chookomolin had not alleged that his own rights had been violated or that he was filing on behalf of another individual, as required under section 34(5) of the Code.

Background on Marlan Patrick Chookomolin

Marlan Patrick Chookomolin was a 25-year-old aspiring journalist. He was found unresponsive on a recreational trail behind County Fair and the Landmark Inn in Thunder Bay just after midnight on June 25, 2017.

He was taken off life support the following night.

Marlan was enrolled at Confederation College, set to begin classes in September 2017, with ambitions of becoming an investigative reporter.

He was known for his athleticism and compassion, often engaging with the homeless community to understand and shed light on poverty.

In June 2018, Thunder Bay Police Service identified a person of interest in Marlan’s death, marking the first public indication that foul play was being considered. Despite these developments, no charges have been reported, and the case remains unresolved.​

Legal Arguments Presented

• Chookomolin’s Position:
  In his October 2024 submission, Chookomolin argued that systemic racism impacted First Nations witnesses involved in the investigation of his son’s death. He claimed that one witness, still alive, had personally experienced discrimination and that the Tribunal should consider this in the interest of fairness and justice.

• Thunder Bay Police Service’s Response:
  TBPS, represented by Counsel Katrina Bekkers, filed a January 2025 response, asserting that there was no evidence of discriminatory treatment towards Chookomolin. They argued that the Human Rights Code requires an applicant to demonstrate a direct infringement of their own rights, which Chookomolin failed to do.

Tribunal’s Decision

In a decision dated March 14, 2025, Vice-Chair Joseph Tascona ruled that the HRTO did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, stating that:

• The Human Rights Code requires individuals to prove that their own rights have been violated, or that they are filing on behalf of another impacted person.
• Public interest complaints cannot be pursued by individuals—only the Ontario Human Rights Commission has the authority to file applications in the public interest.
• The Tribunal’s decision referenced Oliphant v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 HRTO 1902, which affirmed that an applicant must demonstrate a direct or indirect impact on their own rights.

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling underscores the legal limitations of filing public interest claims under the Ontario Human Rights Code. While Chookomolin’s concerns regarding systemic racism in Thunder Bay policing reflect ongoing tensions between Indigenous communities and law enforcement, the HRTO determined that he did not meet the legal threshold to bring forward a case.

For those seeking to challenge systemic issues in policing, the decision highlights the need for direct evidence of personal discrimination or involvement from organizations like the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

With this application dismissed, it remains unclear whether further legal action or policy reviews will be pursued regarding the original concerns raised about TBPS’s investigation into Marlan Patrick Chookomolin’s death.