M.T. v. The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, 2012 HRTO 104

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

M.T. Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel and Sally Goreal Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: January 16, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 104 Indexed as: M.T. v. The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel

APPEARANCES

The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel and Sally Goreal, Respondents: Paula Yudkovitch, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

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 race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, sex, family status and age.

2By Case Assessment Direction dated July 27, 2011, the Tribunal directed that the matter be scheduled for a Summary Hearing January 9, 2012 pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The parties were directed to be prepared to address the issues set out in the respondent’s request for order. The Tribunal also directed that the summary hearing would not be open to the public and the applicant’s name would be anonymized in the Decision. The Case Assessment Direction was sent to the applicant on July 27, 2011 by courier and by mail, and the Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the applicant on October 31, 2011 by mail. While the courier copy of the Case Assessment Direction was not deliverable due to the need for an entry code at the applicant’s residence, neither the mailed copy of the Case Assessment Direction nor the Notice of Summary Hearing was returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.

ANALYSIS

Summary Hearings

3The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The issue in a summary hearing 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 part of the Application 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.

5As the Tribunal noted in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17:

The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code or the intention by a respondent to commit a reprisal for asserting one’s Code rights.

Application to the Facts

6The applicant did not appear despite having been given notice of the summary hearing by the Tribunal, nor has the applicant subsequently contacted the Tribunal to provide an explanation for her failure to attend the summary hearing.

7It is not disputed that the applicant is living with mental health issues. She alleges that the respondents have discriminated against her by apprehending her child. She does not indicate how any of the grounds she has cited are connected to the actions of the respondent. Among her allegations is also that she is being tortured and threatened in the context of a terrorist attack, which she believes is coming from President Obama.

8The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings, which describes the events leading to the apprehension of the applicant’s child. That issue has been the subject of a decision by the Ontario Court of Justice, which found the child in need of protection and determined the custody and care of the applicant’s child. The applicant consented to the arrangements regarding care and custody of her child. The Court also ordered a status review to take place in October, 2012.

9If this matter were to proceed it would be tantamount to a review of the protection decision of the Ontario Court of Justice. That is not the role of this Tribunal. In addition, the Application contains no information that indicates the applicant has evidence or evidence that would be reasonably available to her which could demonstrate a link between the conduct of the respondents in discharging their statutory duties and the prohibited grounds cited in the Application. Accordingly, there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed and it is dismissed.

10As a result of the significant privacy concerns associated with this case, I have set out only those basic facts which are required to dispose of this Application.