Hartford v. Progress Place Rehabilitation Centre, 2009 HRTO 196

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michelle Hartford

Applicant

-and-

Progress Place Rehabilitation Centre, Brenda Singer, and Criss Habal-Brosek

Respondents

case resolution conference DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: February 24, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 196 Indexed as: Hartford v. Progress Place Rehabilitation Centre

APPEARANCES

Michelle Hartford, Applicant ) On her own behalf

Progress Place Rehabilitation Centre, Brenda Singer, ) Richard Worsfold, Counsel and Criss Habal-Brosek, Respondents )

1This is an Application filed September 17, 2008 under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The underlying human rights complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on October 11, 2007 and abandoned upon the filing of this Application with the Tribunal.

Procedure

2This hearing was conducted in accordance with the expectation, expressed in the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules, that section 53(3) applications proceed in a highly expeditious manner given they are often based on complaints, like this one, which are more than a year old by the time they reach the Tribunal. To that end witnesses filed written statements and the hearing proceeded with minimal examination and cross-examination. Evidence and submissions on remedy were reserved until my decision on the merits was issued.

Nature of the Dispute

3The applicant, who self-identifies as a transgendered person, alleges that the respondents improperly banned her from attending the clubhouse operated at the Progress Place Rehabilitation Centre (“Progress Place”) because of her sex. In addition she claims that she was referred to as “it” and “freak” by Progress Place staff and clubhouse members.

4The respondents allege the applicant was involved in a series of incidents at the Progress Place clubhouse and while attempts were made to have the applicant modify her behaviour, those attempts were unsuccessful and eventually the applicant was asked to leave the Progress Place clubhouse. The respondents deny that the applicant’s sex was a factor in their decision. In addition they deny that any staff or clubhouse members of Progress Place referred to the applicant as “it” or “freak”.

Determination

5The Application is dismissed. My reasons follow.

Evidence

6Progress Place is a psychosocial rehabilitation centre funded by the Ministry of Health for people with severe and persistent mental illness.

7Clients of Progress Place are called “members” and members participate on a voluntary basis to operate the rehabilitation centre. There are over 800 members on an annual basis and each day 130 to 180 members are in attendance at the centre.

8The applicant was referred by her family physician to Progress Place in October 1998. She chose to work in an area of the clubhouse called the first floor unit where she was involved in maintenance functions.

9Progress Place has housing available to some of its members. The applicant obtained a subsidized bachelor apartment in Progress Place housing on June 1, 2000 and later transferred to another unit where she continues to reside and continues to receive support from a Progress Place housing support worker.

10The applicant states in her application that she “had no problems until 2001 when I started undergoing the transformation process.” I find that statement is not accurate. The respondents’ uncontradicted evidence is that, in July 2000, despite the request by staff not to intervene, the applicant assaulted a homeless person who was on the front steps of Progress Place by grabbing the individual in a headlock, scratching his face and throwing him down the stairs. This led to the decision to suspend the applicant from the clubhouse for two weeks.

11Ms. Robyn Evans has been with Progress Place for 21 years and is the first floor unit leader. The unit has 200 members. She was the applicant’s contact person for a period of time.

12While the applicant thought of Ms. Evans as a friend, Ms. Evans testified the applicant had an unhealthy obsession with her. The applicant reportedly spoke about Ms. Evans with another clubhouse member and expressed suicidal feelings. The clubhouse member complained this interaction had a deleterious effect on her own mental health.

13According to the respondents, the situation became so extreme they decided to suspend the applicant from Progress Place for one month as part of a rehabilitation plan developed to ensure the integrity of the applicant, other members and Ms. Evans. The plan required the applicant to relocate from the first floor unit area to another unit area of the applicant’s choice, choose a new contact person and that her housing support worker would continue to work with her in the community. The applicant agreed in writing that she would try not to harm herself or other members and would seek out staff directly if she required support regarding self-harm. She also agreed not to contact the clubhouse while under the influence of alcohol and not to take any camera into the clubhouse or make further requests for photographs of Ms. Evans.

14According to the respondents the applicant did not follow the plan when she returned from the one month suspension. She refused to leave the first floor unit area, was disrespectful to staff and repeatedly followed Ms. Evans within the clubhouse. Mere weeks following the applicant’s return from her one month suspension, the applicant was suspended for a year. According to the respondents the applicant continued to receive support from her housing support worker while she was under suspension.

15After the year-long suspension the applicant returned to the clubhouse as a member. Her negative behaviour continued. She continued to be disruptive and disrespectful, refused to leave the first floor unit area and continued to approach Ms. Evans. She was suspended from the clubhouse indefinitely.

16The respondents indicate the applicant now intercepts members as they are entering and exiting the building. Some members report feeling intimidated. Ms. Evans testified she still fears the applicant and the applicant frequently yells at her when she leaves the building.

17The applicant testified about name-calling. While I accept she was called “freak”, “it” and other hurtful epithets, on the applicant’s own evidence this did not occur at Progress Place but at a drop-in-centre that she frequented. This centre is unrelated to Progress Place.

Analysis

18Although there are some differences between the parties with respect to the evidence, none are determinative. I am satisfied the applicant has behaved in a disruptive and disrespectful way in the clubhouse, that her pursuit of Ms. Evans was not welcomed or appropriate and that she repeatedly failed to modify her behaviour despite warnings and escalating consequences.

19With respect to the name-calling, the respondents cannot be held accountable for events that transpired in a drop-in-centre over which they have no control.

20The applicant’s allegation that she was suspended from the clubhouse at Progress Place because she was transgendered is unsupported by any evidence. The decision to suspend the applicant was not in the least informed by her sex. This finding is consistent with the fact the applicant continues to occupy Progress Place housing and continues to receive support from a Progress Place housing support worker.

ORDER

21In light of my conclusions above, there is no need to hear from the parties on remedy. The Application is dismissed.