Freitag v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2012 HRTO 1769

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Henry Freitag

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Ontario Fire Marshal

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: September 21, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1769

Indexed as: Freitag v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

APPEARANCES

Henry Freitag, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Ontario Fire Marshal, Respondents

Jordana K. Joseph, Counsel

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 on the basis of disability in the area of goods, services and facilities. In particular, the Application alleges that the Ontario Fire Code “has reasonable protection for the ‘able body person’ but not for the disabled person.”

2The respondents filed both a Response to the Application and a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”). In their Response, the respondents submit that the Application lacks sufficient particulars to allow them to provide an adequate Response. They submit that the applicant has failed to provide particulars to support a prima facie case of discrimination against them, and they should not be required to file a complete Response until the applicant has provided further particulars. In their Request, they seek an order that the applicant provide further particulars, or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a more comprehensive Response.

3The applicant filed a Response to the respondents’ Request, submitting, among other things, that his Application was clear, and that a letter he wrote to the respondent Ministry clearly identified the discriminatory shortcomings of the Fire Code.

4In a Case Assessment Direction dated September 21, 2011, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.

5Rule 19A.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states as follows:

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.

6In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, the Tribunal made the following comments about summary hearings, at paras. 8-9:

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.

7Following a summary hearing, at which the Tribunal heard submissions from the parties, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and the respondents, submitting that he now has information “clearly indicating that the Fire Code provides for the safety of the disabled”. He refers to a provision requiring that fire safety plans include emergency procedures to be used in case of fire, including evacuating occupants, and “special provisions for persons requiring assistance”. The applicant submits that the Fire Code is perfectly clear, and all of this could have been avoided. He submits that his municipal Fire chief misled him. He does not indicate if he wishes to proceed with his Application.

8The respondents did not respond to the applicant’s post-hearing submissions.

9It appears that the applicant is no longer alleging that the Fire Code is discriminatory on the basis of disability. Considering the applicant’s own concession regarding the provisions of the Fire Code in his post-hearing submissions, the Tribunal determines that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success, and the Application is therefore dismissed.