HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Edosa Adams-Idode
Applicant
-and-
6274901 Canada Inc. o/a Kids Zone Childcare Centre and Todd Taus
Respondents
decision
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Adams-Idode v. Kids Zone Childcare Centre
APPEARANCES
Edosa Adams-Idode, Applicant ) Self-represented
6274901 Canada Inc. o/a Kids Zone Childcare ) Luke Saites, Counsel
Centre and Todd Taus, Respondents )
1This is 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 in services on the basis of family status.
2By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated November 24, 2010, the Tribunal directed that a Summary Hearing be held in this matter by teleconference. It stated as follows at paragraphs 6 and 7:
In my opinion, the most appropriate procedure, given the issues raised in the Application, is to hold a summary hearing on whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, the Tribunal will schedule a ½ day summary hearing by teleconference.
The applicant will make her argument first. She shall be prepared to explain how she can prove on a balance of probabilities that she experienced discrimination because of her family status, and the evidence she would use to establish that. In particular, she shall be prepared to identify the specific conduct by the respondents that she believes was discriminatory and how such conduct was impacted by her family status.
ANALYSIS
Summary Hearings
3The summary hearing process is outlined in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In a summary hearing, the issue is whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or a part thereof will succeed.
4In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8-10, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:
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.
Application to the Facts
5The applicant had enrolled her three children at the respondent child care centre. In August 2009, the respondents informed the applicant that the children could no longer attend the centre. There appears to have been both verbal disagreements and monetary issues between the parties.
6The applicant claims that the reason for the disputes between the parties and the ultimate removal of her children from the child care centre was because the applicant’s daycare costs were being subsidized and because the respondents had safety concerns about her and her husband. In addition, she asserts that the “expelling” of her children from the child care centre on short notice and without any due process lacked fairness.
7In my view, however, none of these allegations appear to relate to the applicant’s family status, which is defined in s. 10 of the Code as “the status of being in a parent and child relationship.” The applicant seems to be of the view that the ground of “family status” applies merely because she is in a parent and child relationship and her disputes with the respondents have some relationship to her children. For this reason, she believes it is within the power of the HRTO to deal with her allegations. This, however, is not the case.
8The HRTO can only deal with applications alleging a violation of the Code. To establish a violation of the Code, the applicant must demonstrate that the respondents treated her differently as compared to others based on her family status and that such treatment caused her a disadvantage resulting in discrimination within the meaning of the Code.
9Apart from bald assertions of discrimination, the applicant was unable to explain how she could prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she experienced discrimination, at least in part, because of her family status. She failed to identify any treatment at the hands of the respondents that she believes was impacted by her family status.
10It is clear that the applicant is upset with the respondents in that she feels that she and her children have been treated unfairly. However, the HRTO does not have the power to deal with all claims of unfairness between parties. It can only deal with applications alleging a violation of the Code. I find that the applicant’s allegations do not establish the necessary link between the respondents’ alleged actions and the ground of family status. The applicant’s allegations, even if true, would not constitute discrimination because of family status and, accordingly, the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
11The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of April, 2011.
“Signed by”
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair