Cameron v. Immigrant Women Services Ottawa, 2009 HRTO 287

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donald Cameron

Applicant

-and-

Immigrant Women Services Ottawa

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: March 12, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 287

Indexed as: Cameron v. Immigrant Women Services Ottawa

Appearances

Donald Cameron, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf

Immigrant Women Services Ottawa, ) Lucya Spencer,

Respondent ) Farida Awal,

) Ann Scholberg

Introduction

1On July 10, 2008, Donald Cameron (the applicant) filed an Application under Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleged that Immigrant Women Services Ottawa (the respondent, “IWSO”) discriminated against him in the provision of services on the basis of sex and disability, contrary to sections 1 and 9 of the Code.

2The applicant alleged that the respondent “will not allow me access to my son”. The applicant also alleged that the respondent “used [his] disability to convince family court [that he] was an unfit parent”. The applicant did not identify the date or dates the violations of the Code are alleged to have occurred.

3In her Response to the Application, the respondent’s Executive Director indicated that IWSO had provided a skills training session to the applicant’s ex-spouse. She stated that the last contact between the applicant’s ex-spouse and IWSO staff was in June 2006. They denied any involvement in the applicant’s case in Family Court and any knowledge of the whereabouts of the applicant’s ex-spouse and son.

4On January 29 2009, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction that required the applicant to deliver to the Tribunal and the respondent a written response that identified what specific actions or incidents are the subject of his Application, and the date(s) of these actions. In respect of any actions or incidents occurring over a year before July 10, 2008, the date of his Application, the applicant was required to explain why the delay happened. The applicant was asked to state whether his Application was made in respect of services the respondents had provided to his spouse, or to him alone, or to both. The applicant was also required to explain why he believes the respondent’s actions amount to discrimination on the basis of sex or disability with respect to services, goods and facilities.

5In response to the Case Assessment Direction, the applicant made more allegations against the respondent. Most of the allegations concerned matters that are not within the jurisdiction of the Code. The applicant did not identify specific actions or incidents in support of his Application. He reiterated that the respondent had discriminated against him in respect of the services it had provided to his ex-spouse, identifying those services as courses that the respondent had provided to his ex-spouse up to May of 2008.

6The Tribunal issued a second Case Assessment Direction on February 19, 2009, indicating the issues on which it was prepared to hear evidence.

7On February 26, the day before his hearing, the applicant called the Registrar’s office to state that he wanted to issue a summons to his ex-spouse, but that he might not be able to serve it as he was subject to a restraining order in respect of her. The Registrar advised the applicant to bring a copy of the restraining order to the hearing and prepare to make submissions as to his need to call this witness.

ISSUES

8The issues to be determined are:

1. Whether the respondents provided services to the applicant’s spouse between July 10, 2007 and May 2008, and, if so,

2. Whether such services were provided in a way that amounted to discrimination against the applicant on the grounds of sex or disability.

Applicant’s Evidence

9The applicant stated that his ex-spouse took courses from IWSO on Saturdays from June 2006 to May 2008. He alleged that the staff of IWSO, in giving these courses, encouraged his ex-spouse to falsely claim abuse and to leave him without warning, taking his son. He also testified that someone from IWSO was with his ex-spouse in a court proceeding. He did not specify why this assistance might breach the Code.

10I specifically raised the issue of evidence with the applicant during the hearing, indicating that the hearing was his opportunity to present evidence relevant to his allegations. He was unable to identify specific actions or statements of IWSO staff, other than those published on its website. He repeated that his ex-spouse told him she was taking Saturday courses, and that he thought the courses were offered by the respondent, but he also stated that there were other places that his ex-spouse could have been on the relevant Saturdays, including dance classes for her daughter.

11In relation to his allegation that the IWSO staff encouraged his ex-spouse to falsely claim abuse and to leave him, the applicant said that his present situation (the fact that his ex-spouse had left him, taking his son) was proof that IWSO staff had done so. He also quoted statements from the respondent’s website, which he identified as “anti-locution” or hate speech against men. Examples of such statements, in the applicant’s view, were the following quotes from the respondent’s website:

• “Support groups provide a sharing and supportive environment for immigrant women who are experiencing or have experienced any kind of abuse such as: physical, verbal, emotional, financial or sexual. Groups meet one day per week for ten weeks. They provide information and support and allow women to express their feelings and to support each other”

• “Feminism is not a political view that grows out of our struggles over women’s oppression, out of our lives as women, out of our identification with each other and our love for women. But as a politic, it is world view anyone can have … feminism is a politic with the potential to bring a new approach to the problems of the world.” (Charlotte Brunch, Passionate Politics).”

• “Violence against women and children needs to end. Men will become less violent when violence becomes socially unacceptable. For this reason, IWSO seeks to change views in society about violence, power and control, and sexism.”

12In regard to his allegation about a staff person of the respondent having assisted his ex-spouse at court proceedings, the applicant was able to identify this person by first name as “Kathy”, but was less confident as to her surname, which was possibly “Belthune”. He indicated that Kathy had used letterhead from Maison D’Amité, which is apparently a shelter for women and children who have been abused.

Respondent’s Evidence

13IWSO identifies itself as a non-profit agency that provides counseling and support services to abused immigrant women and their families in Ottawa and its surrounding areas. Lucya Spencer, IWSO’s Executive Director, gave evidence.

14Ms Spencer stated that the first contact between the applicant’s ex-spouse and IWSO was on March 5, 2006, when she attended a job-search workshop. These are one-day skills training workshops. IWSO keeps records of attendance, and there may be some follow-up depending on the needs of any individual. In the case of the applicant’s ex-spouse, IWSO staff responded to a request for information on an accounting program. IWSO also provided access to a Spanish-speaking worker to assist the applicant’s ex-wife in something to do with someone in Venezuela. Ms Spencer stated that IWSO’s last contact with the applicant’s ex-spouse was in June, 2006.

15Ms Spencer stated that IWSO was not involved in any court proceedings in respect of the applicant’s ex-spouse. She also stated that IWSO had never employed anyone named Kathy Belthune, and that she did not recognize the name.

16Ms Spencer offered to let the applicant review the written material in IWSO’s job-search binder. He did so briefly.

17Ms. Spencer also stated that IWSO offers no Saturday courses. Almost all IWSO services are offered on weekdays from 9am to 5pm. The only exception is an interpreter service that is on call seven days a week on a 24-hour basis to assist with situations involving violence.

CONCLUSIONS

18Ms Spencer was clear and consistent in her testimony. I find her credible, and I conclude that the last time IWSO provided service to the applicant’s ex-spouse was in June 2006.

19Section 34 of the Code provides as follows.

(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

20I brought the time limit in the Code to the applicant’s attention in a Case Assessment Direction issued before his hearing, reminding him that, if he wanted the Tribunal to deal with any actions or incidents that occurred over a year before July 10, 2008, the date of his Application, he must explain why the time limit should be waived. The applicant’s position throughout the hearing was that his wife attended Saturday classes at IWSO until May of 2008. He did not ask for a waiver of the time limit.

21The circumstances of this case might support a waiver of the time limit, as the applicant believed that the respondent’s services to his ex-spouse continued until May of 2008, and the respondent had no difficulty in responding to the applicant’s allegations. In view of this, I will deal with the applicant’s request to summons his ex-spouse, and with the merits of this case.

22Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires that a party who wishes to call witnesses must, not later than forty-five (45) days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing, inform the other parties of their names and expected evidence. The applicant gave no reason for failing to comply with this requirement, and in the circumstances, extending the proceedings to accommodate his request to summons his ex-spouse would not accord with the Tribunal’s responsibility to resolve matters before it in a fair, just and expeditious manner.

23The only evidence adduced by the applicant as to specific actions of the respondent that he alleged amounted to violations of the Code were the above quotes from IWSO’s website.

24The applicant obviously retains his belief that IWSO discriminated against him and that the IWSO website contains “hate speech”. However, I find that the quotes from IWSO’s website noted above do not establish a prima facie case of discrimination in services on the basis of sex or disability. The Code does not deal with “hate speech”. Insofar as the material on the website might be considered the “publication” of a “representation” for the purposes of s. 13 of the Code, which has not been claimed or argued, the wording of the quotes mentioned by the applicant clearly does not indicate the intention of anyone to infringe a right, or to incite the infringement of a right under the Code.

25The Application is dismissed.