HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lloyd Dettering Applicant
-and-
Niagara Regional Police, Wendy Southall, Richard M. Coulis, George McCabe, James McCaffery, Joe Matthews, Sgt. Pieneman, Sgt. McBride, Tim Packer, Kelly Gerrie and Steven Spink Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: July 28, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1616 Indexed as: Dettering v. Niagara Regional Police
APPEARANCES
Lloyd Dettering, Applicant (On his own behalf)
Niagara Regional Police, Wendy Southall, Richard M. Coulis, George McCabe, James McCaffery, Joe Matthews, Sgt. Pieneman, Sgt. McBride, Tim Packer, Kelly Gerrie and Steven Spink, Respondents (Bradley Troup, Counsel)
1This is an Application dated September 30, 2009, filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant names the Niagara Regional Police and ten personal respondents employed by the organizational respondent. He alleges discrimination in receipt of goods, services and facilities on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin and age.
2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, dated December 15, 2009. In it, the Tribunal indicated that it appeared that the Application may not be within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as it did not appear to raise issues that the Tribunal had power to decide and sought submissions from the applicant within 30 days of the date of the Notice.
3The applicant met that deadline and provided lengthy submissions, including a large package containing correspondence between the applicant and various public officials at the local, provincial and federal levels, from whom the applicant seeks help in dealing with what he believes are threats to his safety.
4The applicant’s documents contain a lot of information about his belief that his movements are under surveillance by national security service agencies such as CSIS. He also provides documents in support of his belief that the electrical systems of his home and his computer equipment have been tampered with and that items inside his home are being interfered with and moved around through some form of teleportation and that they are occasionally removed and then reappear some days later.
5In the submissions made in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant states that the only explanation for the respondents’ alleged failure to adequately investigate the crimes that he continues to report to them must be his race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin and age. He also speculates that the respondents may themselves be involved in the crimes allegedly being committed against him. In particular, he states that “the N.R.P.S. apparently dismiss my claims as those of a delusional elderly black person who is from another culture and therefore ineligible, in their opinion, for equal treatment under the laws of Canada”.
6A summary hearing was scheduled to hear submissions from the parties on the applicant’s assertion that the reason for the respondents’ failure to take what he considers appropriate action about his complaints constitutes discrimination on the basis of prohibited grounds under the Code and whether the facts described in the Application raise an arguable claim of discrimination under the Code.
7The hearing took place on July 20, 2010. For the reasons that follow, this Application is dismissed.
Analysis
8The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the area of services, goods and facilities on the basis of grounds listed in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside areas or grounds identified in the Code.
9Aside from making broad, speculative statements about the motives of the respondents, describing his race, colour, place of origin and ethnic origin and disclosing his age, the applicant has not explained how the respondents’ treatment of him and his interactions with them are connected in any way to the Code grounds he has raised.
10Although the Application does not specifically allege discrimination on the basis of disability, there is a reference in the materials to the applicant’s belief that the respondents were not taking adequate steps because the applicant was “delusional”. The applicant denies being a person with a disability and has not named disability as a ground. He indicates, however, that he thinks the respondents may believe he is delusional and that they may perceive him to be a person with a disability.
11Most of the documents provided to the Tribunal with his Application, in response to the Notice of Intention to Dismiss, and for the purposes of the summary hearing, focus on various alleged incidents of surveillance of the applicant and misconduct directed at him by unnamed people within the nation’s security service apparatus that he describes as “criminals”.
12The documentary information also confirms that employees of the organizational respondent often responded to calls made by the applicant by going to his home and discussing his concerns.
13The respondents take the position that the applicant’s own materials confirm that he has not been denied service. They state that as part of their policing function, they make decisions on whether they will take further steps once they have interviewed complainants. In their view, the crux of the applicant’s submissions is that he disagrees with the decisions the respondents have made in that regard. They say that the applicant is not alleging that he has been denied service but rather that he disagrees with decisions made by the respondents while service was being provided. Finally, they argue that there is no evidence to suggest a nexus between the decisions made by the respondents and any of the grounds named by the applicant or the ground of disability or perceived disability.
14When provided an opportunity to expand on the reasons for his belief that he has been denied service for the reasons he states, the applicant admitted that he was speculating about the reasons and that he “cannot read their minds”. When asked if the respondents had done or said anything specific to lead him to believe their conduct was based on grounds listed in his Application or perceived disability, the applicant did not provide any evidence to that effect.
15Although the applicant has made assertions of discriminatory conduct and speculated about the motives behind the respondents’ alleged failure to provide adequate service, he has provided no evidence to bear out his assertion that he received differential treatment based on Code grounds in the respondents not investigating his complaints beyond the initial interviews.
16Having reviewed all of the materials filed by the applicant and the submissions made by the parties, the Tribunal finds that the Application does not raise an arguable claim of discrimination under the Code.
17The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 28th day of July, 2010.
”signed by”________________
Jay Sengupta
Vice-chair
