Darius Moris v. Toronto Gojuryu and Chris Stafford, 2012 HRTO 1967

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darius Moris

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Gojuryu and Chris Stafford

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: October 18, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1967

Indexed as: Moris v Toronto Gojuryu

APPEARANCES

Darius Moris, Applicant ) Self-represented

Toronto Gojuryu and Chris Stafford, ) Self-represented

Respondents )

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 the area of goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability and age.

2By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated June 13, 2012, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held by teleconference. It stated as follows at paragraphs 5:

The Registrar will schedule a half-day summary hearing by teleconference. The applicant will proceed first during this summary hearing. The applicant shall 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.

ANALYSIS

Summary Hearings

3The summary hearing process is outlined in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In a summary hearing the issue is whether an 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.

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.

Application to the Facts

5The applicant was a karate student at the Toronto Gojuryu (“dojo”). The personal respondent was the Chief Instructor. The applicant had his white belt and was promoted by the personal respondent to yellow belt after appropriate training in technique and drilling. According to the applicant he began training for the next belt level, the orange belt, but failed to achieve this level so he quit the dojo. He claims that the personal respondent would not award him the orange belt because of his age, 48 years old, and his disability, a hip replacement.

6I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. To succeed in his Application the applicant must be able to prove discrimination on the basis of a Code ground on a balance of probabilities. To show discrimination in this case, the applicant must prove a link between his failure to be awarded an orange belt and his disability and/or age. Apart from his bald assertions that disability and/or age were factors, the applicant was unable to point to any evidence that would be available to him that would show a link between his failure in being awarded an orange belt and the prohibited grounds that he has pleaded.

7Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.