Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Eileen Brown Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: May 22, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1025 Indexed as: Brown v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Appearances
Eileen Brown, Applicant ) Self-Represented Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent ) Eric Del Junco, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed 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 respect of employment (later changed to an allegation of discrimination in the area of contracts) on the basis of disability. In this case, the applicant applied to act as a foster parent through the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“CAST”). The applicant alleges the treatment she received and the respondent’s decision not to move forward with her application to foster were discriminatory.
2The respondent filed a Response in which it sought an order dismissing the Application, arguing that fostering children is not “employment” within the meaning of the Code, and, alternatively, that it did not discriminate against the applicant because it was unable to accommodate her needs without incurring undue hardship in the form of undue risk to children in its care.
3A Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) was issued prior to the hearing indicating that while the unrepresented applicant had framed her application as discrimination in respect of employment, the Application appeared to raise issues relating to other social areas governed by the Code. The parties were directed to address the applicability of Williams v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 265, to the circumstances of this Application. In Williams, the applicant withdrew a claim based on employment and proceeded, instead, on a claim of discrimination in the area of services, goods and facilities and in the area of contracts.
4During the course of the hearing, the applicant confirmed that she sought to proceed with the Application on the basis that she experienced discrimination in the area of contracts. The respondent consented to the amendment of the Application and the Application was heard on that basis.
5The CAD also required that the applicant comply with the Tribunal’s Rules regarding disclosure and production of documents she intended to rely upon at the hearing.
6Following the issuance of the CAD, the applicant served and filed a written witness statement and a number of documents.
7The hearing proceeded as scheduled. The Tribunal heard from the applicant on her own behalf. The applicant called no further witnesses in support of her Application. Kim Hnatko, Vania DaSilva, Marie Lynch and Marc Macdonald, four employees of CAST, gave evidence on behalf of the respondent.
8For the reasons that follow, this Application is dismissed.
The Law
9Sections 3 and 9 of the Code read, in part, as follows:
Every person having legal capacity has a right to contract on equal terms without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.
No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.
10Disability” is defined in section 10 of the Code, in part, as follows:
“disability” means,
a. any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, a brain injury, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical co-ordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device…