Abukar Sabrie v. Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab Co-operative Ltd. and Peter Jensen, 2011 HRTO 1064

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Abukar Sabrie Applicant

-and-

Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab Co-operative Ltd. and Peter Jensen Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman Date: June 2, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1064 Indexed as: Sabrie v. Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab Co-operative Ltd.

APPEARANCES BY

Abukar Sabrie, Applicant ) Self-represented Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab Co-operative Ltd. and Peter Jensen, Respondents ) Christopher Eames, Counsel

1This is an application filed June 18, 2009, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). A hearing was conducted on April 13, 2011, to address the respondents’ Request for Order seeking to dismiss this application for failure to state a prima facie case and abuse of process.

2During the relevant period, the applicant held a valid taxicab license and rented a shift car from ANS Taxi. The corporate respondent, Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab Co-operative Ltd. (“Co-op”), had a brokerage arrangement with ANS Taxi whereby in return for a monthly brokerage fee and identifying its vehicle as a “Co-op” cab, ANS received dispatch services from Co-op. The personal respondent was the dispatch manager at the relevant time.

3In order for the applicant to access the dispatch system of the corporate respondent with his ANS fleet car, he required a valid taxicab and provincial driver’s licenses. In order to transport a client under Co-op’s Wheel-Trans TTC contract, he also needed to pass a vulnerable persons screening check and receive four hours’ training. The applicant fulfilled these requirements, received an ID number and pin, and was allowed access to Co-op’s dispatch system, as well as Wheel-Trans dispatches.

4The applicant, however, was also free to decline any Co-op dispatch request and could pick up his own fares.

5The applicant expressed an interest in picking up TTC Wheel-Trans orders and began receiving these on June 2, 2009.

6In order for Co-op, on behalf of the TTC, to pay a driver for a Wheel-Trans dispatch, the driver is required to turn on the taxi meter when he or she picks up the customer and at the end of the trip print a receipt before turning off the meter. The driver also hand records on a run sheet the pick-up and drop-off times, kilometers driven, and amount charged.

7The applicant accepted a Wheel-Trans dispatch on June 3, 2009 for two passengers. Later, the corporate respondent received reports that, contrary to the TTC rules, the applicant had used a private vehicle rather than a properly licensed taxicab. As well, the corporate respondent found that the printed meter receipt did not match the handwritten run sheet for this dispatch and the meter receipt suggested that a licensed taxicab had not been used.

8The personal respondent was asked to and did investigate this incident and thereafter the corporate respondent suspended the applicant from its dispatch system.

9The applicant disputes that he did anything contrary to the rules and instead alleges that the decision to suspend him from the dispatch system was based on the discriminatory grounds of his race, colour, and ethnic origin.

10However, the applicant has not provided any evidence to link the decision to these grounds. When asked at the hearing what evidence he had to support his allegation, he stated only that the conversation with the personal respondent when investigating the incident was unpleasant; however, he admits nothing was said by the respondents to link the decision to his race, colour, or ethnic origin.

11The respondents dispute that they had an employment relationship with the applicant. I do not need to decide this question, however, because after considering the applicant’s written submissions, as well as his submissions at the preliminary hearing, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to establish a nexus between the respondents’ decision to suspend his access to their dispatch system and any of the discriminatory grounds alleged. In order for this motion to succeed it must be “plain and obvious” that the Application is certain to fail (Braithwaite v. Ontario (Chief Coroner), 2005 HRTO 31). I am satisfied the applicant does not have any evidence to show that the respondents have infringed his Code rights as there is no evidence linking the applicant’s suspension from the dispatch system and a Code ground.

12It is plain and obvious that this Application is certain to fail.

13In the circumstances, the respondents’ Request to dismiss the Application is granted. The Application is dismissed.