Loojune v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 936

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Narine Loojune

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission and Mark Gray

Respondents

decisiON

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: April 29, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 936

Indexed as: Loojune v. Toronto Transit Commission

AppearanceS BY

Narine Loojune, Applicant ) On his own behalf

Toronto Transit Commission and ) Cynthia D. Kontra, Counsel Mark Gray, Respondents ) )

1This is an Application filed June 17, 2009, under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2A hearing was held in this Application on April 19, 2010. I heard the evidence of the applicant, the personal respondent, and Mr. Mountford, an employee of the corporate respondent.

3The applicant alleges that his right to be free from discrimination in the provision of a service was infringed by the respondents when Mr. Gray challenged his transfer from a previous bus and required him to pay another adult fare. The applicant alleges that Mr. Gray deliberately lied about the time on the transfer. The applicant stated that he believed that a TTC transfer is good for about two hours. This belief was said to be based on his experience using Mississauga Transit. The applicant also alleges that he was the only non-white person in a small group of passengers that the personal respondent challenged and that this fact alone is sufficient to establish discrimination.

4The personal respondent had no particular recollection of this incident. A copy of the transfer was produced for the hearing. He testified that the transfer was out of time. Based on the route of the bus and where the applicant says he boarded the bus (Jane and Wilson), the applicant would have received the transfer at about 11:15. The applicant says that he received it at about 11:20. Based on the scheduled run time between Jane and Keele, the applicant should have arrived at the corner of Keele and Wilson, where the transfer dispute arose, by 11:26 or so if the applicant’s estimate of when he boarded the bus is accurate.

5The applicant could not recall with precision when he arrived at Keele and Wilson but thought it was around noon. The applicant had no explanation for why it would have taken him over 30 minutes to get from Jane and Wilson to Keele and Wilson, a trip that is scheduled to take six minutes.

6The respondents’ evidence was that there is no fixed amount of time for which a transfer is valid but is based upon the route and the distance from the start of the route to the point where the transfer is tendered. In this case, given the route and its start time the transfer should have been presented at approximately 11:30. Mr. Gray testified that he always allows a bit of leeway – up to 30 minutes total, to account for contingencies that can occur. The respondents state the transfer was tendered at approximately 12:30.

7I have no difficulty accepting that the transfer was out of time. Mr. Loojune successfully raised questions about the precise accuracy of the time stamps that the respondents relied upon to determine when events occurred; however, in the end it is clear that such discrepancies were likely minor – up to five minutes out one way or the other at worst. In short I accept the evidence of the respondent that the transfer was tendered at 12:30, more than an hour after the applicant would have received it, six minutes away.

8The applicant alleged that Mr. Gray singled him out, but there is no evidence this is the case. The applicant was unable to say anything about the other passengers other than that they were all white and some had transfers. He conceded that he did not know anything about their travel to that point and therefore could not give any evidence about the validity of a transfer or other fare media held by any one of them.

9The applicant alleges that Mr. Gray deliberately lied about the transfer, saying it was a 10 o’clock transfer rather than an 11 o’clock transfer as the applicant asserts. I am satisfied that, while there would be some basis for the applicant’s view that it was an 11 o’clock transfer, the respondents’ evidence was that the route of the prior bus began at about 10:40 and hence the transfer was considered a 10 o’clock transfer.

10The applicant alleges that he asked Mr Gray his name and asked that he call the police. Pursuant to TTC policy, the personal respondent declined to give his name but, again pursuant to policy, did contact his supervisor about the fare dispute and a call was then placed to the police. The applicant left the bus and the police never arrived on the scene.

11The Application is dismissed. The applicant appears to sincerely believe that he was singled out for differential treatment, but there is no evidence that this was the case. I have determined that the transfer was out of time when he tendered it.

12The applicant asserts that he was the only person challenged but was unable to tell us anything about the fare media the other passengers tendered. It appears likely that the applicant’s belief that a transfer was valid for two hours informed his view of the circumstances – if his belief was accurate then the transfer he held would have been valid.

13However his belief was not accurate and there is nothing else about the surrounding circumstances that would support the inference that the applicant was singled out for greater scrutiny because of his race, colour or ethnic origin.