HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
David Salvator Vizcaya
Applicant
-and-
Imaginenative Film and Media Arts Festival, GAT, Ingrid Hamilton and Amy Rouillard
Respondents
decision
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Vizcaya v. Imaginenative Film and Media Arts Festival
APPEARANCES
) David Salvator Vizvaya, ) On his own behalf Applicant ) ) ) Imaginenative Film and Media Arts ) Festival, GAT, Ingrid Hamilton, and ) Kent Elson, Amy Rouillard, Respondents ) Counsel )
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to goods, services and facilities, contrary to s. 1 of the Code.
2In a Case Assessment Direction dated April 4, 2011, the Tribunal directed that the matter be dealt with by way of summary hearing, pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
3A summary hearing was held by telephone on June 6, 2011, during which I heard submissions from the applicant and from counsel for the respondents.
4For the following reasons the application is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
5The applicant complains that he was prohibited from attending a reception being held as part of the annual Imaginenative Film and Media Arts Festival even though it was free and open to the public. He claims that the personal respondents told him that he could not attend the reception and that they then blocked his way to the room where the reception was taking place. He believes that his disability, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, was a factor in the personal respondents’ decision to exclude him from the reception. He claims that the personal respondents were aware of his disability.
6The respondents deny the allegations of discrimination and state that the applicant’s disability was not a factor in the decision to exclude him from the reception. The respondents state that the applicant arrived at the reception when it was almost finished. They state that the applicant was denied entry to the reception because the venue was at capacity and that the applicant was so advised.
7Even if I were to find that the personal respondents were aware of his alleged disability, the applicant failed to provide any particulars or identify any evidence that links his exclusion from the reception to his alleged disability. He stated that the behaviour of the personal respondent was inappropriate and disrespectful “for whatever reason” and that he “can’t read their minds”.
8In my view, the applicant’s claim that he was denied entry to the reception because of his alleged disability is without any evidentiary basis and is mere speculation. I am not satisfied that there is any reasonable prospect of connecting the applicant’s exclusion from the reception to his alleged disability. For this reason the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of June, 2011.
”signed by”_______________
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair