Mike Naraine v. City of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 2124

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mike Naraine

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: November 24, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2124

Indexed as: Naraine v. Toronto (City)

APPEARANCES BY

Mike Naraine, Applicant ) Self-represented

City of Toronto, Respondent ) Andrea Denovan, Counsel

1The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.

2On April 1, 2011, the applicant, who self-identifies as South Asian, filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), which alleged that the respondent discriminated against him because of his race with respect to services.

3Specifically, he alleged that because he is South Asian the respondent failed to enforce its by-laws to prevent his neighbour from parking illegally.

4On May 16, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, which directed that a summary hearing be held by teleconference to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on that basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.

5On October 18, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for November 21, 2011. Prior to the hearing, the applicant filed supporting documents with the Tribunal.

6The summary hearing took place by conference call as scheduled. I heard submissions from the applicant, and dismissed the Application with written reasons to follow. The following are my written reasons:

7Rule 19A.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provides:

The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

8Furthermore, in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, the Tribunal made the following comments at paras. 8-10:

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

In considering what evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, the Tribunal must be attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, information about the reasons for the actions taken by a respondent are within the sole knowledge of the respondent. Evidence about the reasons for actions taken by a respondent may sometimes come through the disclosure process and through cross-examination of the people involved. The Tribunal must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that such evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination. However, when there is no reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities, the application must be dismissed following the summary hearing.

9The essence of the applicant's submissions was that the respondent put up a barrier to prevent him from parking illegally, but does not enforce the applicable municipal by-law to stop his neighbour, who is White, from parking illegally. In support of his submissions, he referred to documents that show that the respondent refused to grant his neighbour a permit to park legally in the site that he is currently parking in illegally.

10I pressed the applicant on whether there is other evidence that he has, or that is reasonably available to him, that can show a link between the respondent's alleged inaction and his race, but the applicant simply reiterated that he can prove that the respondent did not enforce its by-law.

11In my view, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his Code rights were violated. Beyond making general allegations of unfairness and alleging that he and his neighbour are of different races, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable prospect that evidence he has or that is reasonably available to him can show a link between the respondent's alleged inaction and his race.

12Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.