Glover v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 HRTO 2412

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joan Glover

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Carol Faulkner, Jasmine White and Margo Cain

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: December 3, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2412

Indexed as: Glover v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

APPEARANCES

Joan Glover, Applicant ) Self Represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario ) as represented by the Ministry of Community ) Geoffrey Baker, Counsel and Social Services, Carol Faulkner, ) Jasmine White, Margo Cain Respondents )

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed June 30, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in respect of the provision of goods and services on the basis of disability. The applicant also alleges a reprisal.

2The respondents requested that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the underlying complaint disclosed no violation of the Code.

3In a Case Assessment Direction dated October 19, 2010, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions clarifying her allegations of Code breaches against the respondents. A hearing was convened in St. Catharines on November 29, 2010 to hear oral submissions from the parties.

4This Decision addresses the preliminary question of whether the applicant has pleaded facts that could give rise to a finding of discrimination.

BACKGROUND FACTS

5The Tribunal has not yet heard evidence from the parties. The following is based on the pleadings, voluminous documentary production, and information contained in oral submissions. For the most part, the key facts are not disputed.

6The applicant is a recipient of benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”), which is administered by the respondent Ministry under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, sched. B.

7The facts giving rise to this Application are based on events that occurred mostly between 2003 and 2006.

8Upon the death of the applicant’s mother in Florida in 2002, the applicant became an estate beneficiary. She alleges that this change in her financial status adversely impacted on her receipt of ODSP in ways that she was not able to foresee or prepare for.

9The applicant alleges two specific occasions of adverse impact. First, between February and June 2003, she was deemed ineligible and had her benefits terminated after ODSP determined that the applicant had assets in excess of the amounts permitted under the rules. The applicant internally appealed the decision and, in July 2003, succeeded in having her benefits reinstated retroactively.

10Then, in September 2004, the applicant received a lump sum payment of $42,000 from the estate, which triggered a review by ODSP of the applicant’s eligibility and a finding that she was again in excess. In June 2005, the applicant launched an internal review of the suspension and, in July 2005, ODSP reinstated her benefits retroactive to May 2005. Apparently, it was determined that the applicant was ineligible for benefits, because of the funds she received in September 2004, for the period up to the end of April 2005.

PARTIES’ POSITIONS

11The essence of the applicant’s case is, in her submission, the respondents had a positive obligation to provide her with necessary, helpful information about how to manage her receipt of payments from her mother’s estate in a way that would be least damaging to her receipt of ODSP. She holds the respondents liable for the suffering she endured as a result of not being kept informed of what was happening with her case, not knowing her rights, not being aware of options, not having assistance, and not being able to count on Ministry officials to be helpful.

12The applicant made a number of additional allegations against other government institutions and staff, lawyers, doctors and family members. None of these individuals or institutions is party to this Application and the applicant acknowledged that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to dealing with the parties that are named in this proceeding and who have had a chance to respond and be heard.

13The respondents took the position that the applicant’s allegations stem from her dissatisfaction with the normal operation of a statutory scheme with clear rules that determine eligibility. They argued that it was the applicant, not they, who failed to provide necessary information to facilitate the smooth processing and continuation of her benefits, and that matters were corrected promptly upon receipt of required information. They disputed the applicant’s argument that ODSP has a duty to provide advice about legal rights or estate planning. More importantly, they submitted that the applicant was not treated differently than any other recipient of ODSP in the manner that they handled her file or dealt with her personally. They argued that not only was the applicant not denied a benefit, but also that she had failed to show a nexus, or connection, between her disability and any alleged denial of a benefit.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

14The applicant feels deeply aggrieved as a result of years of what she described as repeated victimization by the legal system, dating to when she was a key witness in a murder trial. I have sympathy for the applicant’s hardships and the experiences she describes as having hindered her ability to live a free and independent life. For reasons of her personal circumstances, she is dependant on public assistance. In that respect, she has concerns about privacy and autonomy, and feels disadvantaged by her lack of information and, more poignantly, by her inability to secure professional assistance to help her navigate the system.

15The applicant brought a complaint against a government program and individuals who work in that system. It is necessary that the allegations relating to the named parties be examined in the light of the specific Code protections against discrimination that the applicant relies upon, and which are the only basis for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over this matter.

16There is no question the respondent Ministry is providing “services” within the meaning of section 1: See Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2009 HRTO 1595 at para. 11. There is also no question the applicant is a person who identifies, and is recognized, as having a disability within the meaning of section 10.

17However, a prima facie case of discrimination requires more than these threshold facts. The applicant has not alleged that she was treated unfairly by the respondents because of her disability, or that she was singled out or treated differently than others on that basis. Nor has the applicant alleged that the respondents’ conduct, or the ODSP rules, had an adverse impact on her that necessitated the accommodation of her disability-related needs.

18The applicant’s allegations constitute a combination of understandable, though unsubstantiated, service-related grievances, combined with completely unfounded allegations of collusion between government officials and private-sector professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, involved at various stages in the applicant’s life.

19The fact that the applicant is a person with a disability who was unsatisfied with the operation of the disability support program, found its rules difficult to know or understand, and disagreed with decisions of ODSP administrators does not on its face disclose a case of discrimination. There is nothing in the applicant’s pleading that could lead to inferring a discriminatory intent or effect on the part of the respondents. The applicant’s subjective belief, in the absence of any supporting facts to make a reasonable inference, is not sufficient. See: Belso v. Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 1229 at para. 17.

20In the circumstances, and for the reasons described above, I am unable to find that the applicant has pleaded a case that discloses any potential breaches of the Code. There is therefore no basis to proceed to a hearing on the merits. The Application is dismissed.