Herman v. Ottawa Police Service, 2009 HRTO 974

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Rivka Herman

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Service, Debbie Palmer and Yana Amis

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: July 17, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 974

Indexed as: Herman v. Ottawa Police Service

1In this Application filed on January 10, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), the applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed and sexual orientation in goods, services and facilities against the respondents. Specifically, the applicant alleges that the personal respondent Yana Amis ("Ms. Amis") and the personal respondent Debbie Palmer ("Sergeant Palmer") made a number of comments about her which the applicant alleges were discriminatory during an interview with another individual conducted in October 2005. Sergeant Palmer conducted the interview on behalf of the respondent Ottawa Police Service. Ms. Amis attended the interview and translated that individual's information into English.

2The respondents have filed Responses. Amongst the other issues that have been raised by the respondents, Ms. Amis submits that she was not providing services to the respondent Ottawa Police Service as a court or police interpreter. She denies making any discriminatory comments but submits, in the alternative, that if they were made she was not providing services within the meaning of the Code. She submits that she attended the October 2005 interview with the other individual, at the other individual's request, on a pro bono basis.

3The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is based on the provisions of the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness that are outside its jurisdiction.

4Section 1 of the Code provides:

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.

5In my view, there is an issue about whether the applicant's allegations against Ms. Amis fall under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, because it is not clear that what the applicant alleges against Ms. Amis could constitute discrimination with respect to services. The applicant is directed to make submissions in writing explaining how, in her view, the allegations against Ms. Amis relate to alleged discrimination against her with respect to services within the meaning of the Code. She is directed to deliver her submissions within seven days from the date of this Interim Decision to the respondents (through their counsel) and file them with the Tribunal. If the respondents wish to respond to the applicant's position, they are directed to set out their position in writing and deliver them to the applicant and the other respondent(s) (through their lawyer) and file them with the Tribunal within seven days of receiving the applicant's submissions.

6The Tribunal will consider the other issues that the respondents have raised following consideration of the jurisdictional issue.

7I am not seized of this matter.