Remes v. Toronto (City), 2012 HRTO 1434

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Adriana Remes

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Works High Park Parkdale (City of Toronto)

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: July 23, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1434

Indexed as: Remes v. Toronto (City)

APPEARANCES

Adriana Remes, Applicant

Self-represented

Ontario Works High Park Parkdale (City of Toronto), Respondent

Andrea Denovan, 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 with respect to employment and housing on the basis of race, colour and record of offences.

2Following a review of the Application, a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) was issued on April 4, 2012, directing that a Summary Hearing take place. The Summary Hearing was held by conference call on July 6, 2012.

DECISION

3For the reasons that follow I find that this matter has no reasonable chance 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

6The applicant complains about difficulties she experienced in obtaining various kinds of benefits from the respondent, named by the applicant as Ontario Works High Park Parkdale (a program delivered by the City of Toronto). She alleges that she was given incorrect and inconsistent information and that she was generally poorly treated by the respondent. Both in the narrative in her Application and at the summary hearing, she made numerous allegations of poor behaviour on the part of workers at the respondent, including allegations of persecution and malicious treatment and allegations of a plan involving the City of Toronto, the police and individuals at shelters and the respondent, to orchestrate the theft of her identity and ensure her incarceration. She alleges that several of the respondent’s workers who mistreated her were “black women”, and she identifies herself as a “white woman”. In her Application, she states that the alleged mistreatment by these women constituted a “trend”.

7The respondent submitted that the applicant has received all of the benefits to which she is entitled, but that in any event, she has not pointed to any evidence upon which she would rely to establish a link between the respondent’s alleged actions and the grounds she cited. Additionally, the respondent submits that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success because the respondent does not supply housing to, nor is it in an employment relationship with the applicant.

8The 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.

9The Case Assessment Direction issued in this matter indicated clearly that at the summary hearing the applicant was to

make argument about why the Application should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, and point to the evidence on which the applicant will prove a link between the respondent’s actions and the grounds cited.

10In the course of the summary hearing, the applicant was given the opportunity to provide her submissions and to point to evidence linking the respondent’s alleged actions and the grounds cited.

11The applicant has made an allegation of discriminatory treatment, but has not provided an explanation of how she will be able to connect the alleged actions of the respondent and her race, colour or record of offences. Stating that the women who dealt with her were “black women” and that she is a “white woman” does not establish the necessary connection between the respondent’s alleged actions and her race, colour or record of offences. The applicant has made a bald assertion of discrimination, but has not indicated what evidence she would be able to call to indicate a link between the alleged actions of the respondent and the grounds she has cited. Without such evidence, the Application cannot succeed.

12I am also mindful of the respondent’s submissions that they do not provide employment or housing to the applicant and that therefore there is no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant has made no argument in this regard, but, even were she able to somehow establish that the areas of employment and housing were relevant to this Application or, even if her application was considered in the context of the social area of services, as found above, she has not pointed to evidence which would prove a link between the respondent’s actions and the grounds cited, and the Application would have no reasonable prospect of success.

13I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed and it is dismissed.