HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Stanley Gumbs
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. and Christine La Pointe
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Indexed as: Gumbs v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.
APPEARANCES
Stanley Gumbs, Applicant
Self-represented
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp and Christine La Pointe, Respondents
Stewart McMahon, 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 services because of race and colour.
background
2On July 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (the “CAD”) ordering a summary hearing.
3In the CAD, the Tribunal noted that “the respondent has provided an explanation of the events in question to which the applicant has not responded by filing a Reply,” and directed that during the 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 respondents’ actions and the grounds cited, given the explanation of events in the Response.
the summary hearing
4The applicant stated that he did not file a Reply to the Response because he moved in December 2011. However, the Tribunal’s file indicated that the applicant had picked up a copy of the Response on March 7, 2011.
5It appears that the crux of this Application is that in October 2010 an Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. (“OLG”) employee approached the applicant in Woodbine Racetrack’s slot machine area, accused him of stealing, confiscated his Winners Circle Rewards card, threw that card in the garbage and had security remove him from the premises. The applicant states that the OLG employee was motivated by his race and colour.
6The Winners Circle Rewards card is available, at no cost, to regular users of the slot machines. Gambling activity is tracked and leads to rewards such as complimentary meals, gifts, cash back and hotel stays. The rules governing use of this card include a prohibition on sharing the card, specifically, “The card can only be used by the named cardholder and may not be placed in other players’ machines.”
7The respondent submitted two surveillance reports concerning the applicant, dated July 17, 2010 and October 10, 2010. The July surveillance report noted that a number of patrons, including the applicant, were occupying seats at the slot machines without playing games, contrary to the rules. The October surveillance report noted two other patrons playing on a slot machine into which the applicant’s Winners Circle Rewards card had been inserted. The applicant did not suggest that these reports were fabricated.
8I asked the applicant what evidence he would present at a hearing to establish a link between his race and colour and the negative treatment he alleges he received from the respondent and its employees. He did not point to any evidence other than that discrimination was “the only way I can see it”. In other words, because he saw no valid non-discriminatory reason for the revocation of his Winners Circle Rewards privileges, discrimination must be the reason.
9The applicant acknowledged that he had signed the Winners Circle Rewards application form and was aware of the rule against sharing his Winner Circle Rewards card. He volunteered that he had allowed other individuals, including his sister and a female friend who he called “my girl,” to use his card when they accompanied him to OLG slots.
10The applicant said that he expected to call one witness at the hearing. The proposed evidence from this witness does not address the allegations of discrimination. Rather, that witness would testify about the applicant’s good character and would confirm the applicant’s admission that he had let other people use his Winners Circle Rewards card.
DECISION
11The nature of a summary hearing was set out in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras 8 and 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 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.
12While the applicant’s concern about his good name is genuine, the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with discrimination or harassment on the grounds set out in the Code. To succeed, an applicant must be able to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a link between the impugned actions and a Code ground. See Forde v Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17.
13There is a clear rule that Winners Circle Rewards cards not be shared, and the respondent states that the applicant’s card was confiscated because he did so. The applicant does not dispute that he shared the card. Indeed, he stated during the summary hearing that he had done so. Further, the witness who he proposes to call at a hearing would confirm that he had shared the card.
14The applicant was not able to point to any evidence that the respondent had treated him differently than any other individual who breached the Winners Circle Rewards card rules.
15In conclusion, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable prospect that any evidence he has, or that is reasonably available to him, can show a link between the respondent’s actions and Code grounds. Thus, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the application can succeed. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 25^th^ day of October, 2012.
“signed by”
Catherine Bickley
Member