Jane Doe v. Ottawa Police Services, 2011 HRTO 989

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jane Doe

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: May 24, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 989

Indexed as: Doe v. Ottawa Police Services

APPEARANCES:

Jane Doe, Applicant ) Self-represented

Ottawa Police Services, Respondent ) Matthieu Charron, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on May 14, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her in the provision of services on the basis of race and disability.

2Following a review of the Application, a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) was issued on February 4, 2011, directing that a summary hearing take place. The summary hearing was held by conference call on April 21, 2011.

DECISION

3For the reasons that follow, I find that this matter has no reasonable prospect of success.

ANALYSIS

Summary Hearings

4In 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. It is outlined in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure:

19A.1 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.

5In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 8 and 9, 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.

Application to the Facts

6Initially, in her Application, the applicant alleged that she had been subject to reprisal by members of the respondent police services based on their assumption that she is suffering from mental illness. She stated that she had been trying to make complaints to them regarding trespass, harassment and sabotage, and that instead she was labelled, insulted and ignored.

7In her subsequent documentation to the Tribunal, however, she indicated that she made mention of past events to provide background only, but that the subject matter of her Application was a police report dated November 19, 2009. In the summary hearing convened in this matter, she confirmed that the subject of her Application is the November 19, 2009 report. She seeks to have the report removed from police records, as she alleges that the existence of a report which makes reference to Public Mischief and Misleading an Officer will have a detrimental impact on her attempts to secure placements and work as a social worker.

8By way of background, the applicant indicates a lengthy history of interaction with the respondent police services, and has alleged for some time that they have not investigated complaints she has made. She has written letters to successive police chiefs and has pursued her concerns in various forums, including Small Claims Court.

9She also states that the respondent has concluded that she suffers from a mental illness, and she has provided a copy of a business card from a detective who is assigned to the Ottawa Police Service’s Mental Health Crisis Unit. She also provided a copy of an April 23, 2010 letter from an acting superintendent at the Ottawa Police Services to her city councillor, where he notes that members of the Mental Health Crisis Team have communicated with the applicant and have offered her the opportunity to meet with a psychiatrist, but she has refused. She states that she does not suffer from a mental illness.

10The November 19, 2009 police report, which is the subject of this Application, bears the words “General Occurrence Hardcopy, Mischief Public, Mislead Office”. Briefly, on the evening of November 19, 2009, the report indicates that a police officer attended at the applicant’s home and attempted to speak with her. The report recounts the fact that the officer initially approached the applicant in her driveway as she arrived home and indicates that he “observed a lone black female occupant in the driver seat”. The report states that the officer displayed his police badge and identified himself, advising that he was there to see her about her letter to the police chief. The report indicates that the applicant identified herself and stated that she wanted to enter her garage, and would then let him in the front door of the residence.

11The applicant states that the officer did not show his identification badge at any time, but did identify himself as a police officer, though he was not in uniform. The applicant parked her car in the garage and went into her house. The report indicates that she called to the officer from inside the house, asking who he was and what he wanted. The report indicates he again identified himself and showed his police badge, and repeated that he wanted to speak to her about the email letter she had sent to the police chief. The police report states that she did not open the door of her home to speak with the officer, but that he advised her that he was there to inform her that if she persisted in sending letters to the chief of police, she would be charged with mischief.

12In explaining how she feels the respondent has violated the Code, she states that because the report refers to her as a “black woman”, she has been discriminated against. Further, she alleges that this report would not have been filed had the police not perceived her to be a person with a mental illness. She alleges that the respondent’s perception of her as a person with a disability has resulted in her being treated differently from other citizens.

13The respondent argues that all police reports describe the subject of the report and that there is nothing discriminatory about the description of the applicant as a “black female”. Further, they argue that there is no evidence that the report was generated because of a perception of disability and that there is no indication that she was treated differently than other citizens would have been.

14The power of the Tribunal is limited to dealing with applications alleging a violation of the Code, which prohibits discrimination on specific grounds. It does not have the power to deal with all claims of unfairness or all disputes between parties.

15The CAD issued in this matter indicated clearly that at the summary hearing the applicant was to “explain how she can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she experienced discrimination on the basis of race and/or disability, and the evidence she would use to establish her allegations”. In the course of the summary hearing, the applicant was given the opportunity to provide this explanation but was unable to do so. Though he did not appear as her counsel, she was assisted by a lawyer, Kevin Butler. The respondent did not object to Mr. Butler’s participation.

16The applicant has made an allegation of discriminatory treatment, but has not provided an explanation of how she will be able to connect the November 19, 2009 police report with the respondent’s alleged perception of disability. She has not indicated what evidence she would use to establish her allegation that the report exists because the respondent perceives her to have a mental illness. The applicant has made a bald assertion, but has not indicated what evidence she would be able to call to indicate a link between the fact of the police report and perceived disability.

17Further, the applicant has not provided an explanation of how she will be able to connect the existence of the November 19, 2009 police report with discrimination on the basis of race. She has not indicated what evidence she would use to establish her allegation that the report exists because of her race. The applicant has merely noted that the report describes her as a “black woman”, but has not indicated what evidence she would be able to call that might establish that this reference was more than simply a routine description of the subject of a police report.

18The applicant must be able to show that the respondent has treated her differently as compared to others based on her race and/or disability for her Application to be successful. She has not, however, been able to identify any evidence which would, if proven, establish a connection between the existence of the November 19, 2009 police report and her race, or the alleged perception of a disability. Without such evidence, her Application cannot succeed.

19I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed and it is dismissed.