Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Megan Hinsley Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Ontario Disability Support Program) Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: November 19, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2169 Indexed as: Hinsley v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)
APPEARANCES
Megan Hinsley, Applicant Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Ontario Disability Support Program), Respondent Cheryl Ellison, 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 on the basis of disability.
2By Case Assessment Direction dated June 8, 2012, the Tribunal, at the request of the respondent, directed that the matter be scheduled for a Summary Hearing pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
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, the Tribunal stated 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 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.
5The applicant is a recipient of income support and benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”). The respondent administers the ODSP, through which it provides income support and other benefits to eligible people with disabilities who are in financial need.
6Recipients of ODSP support may be eligible for additional benefits including “Employment Start Up and Training Benefits” such as costs related to finding a job, preparing for an interview or meeting job qualifications.
7On June 2, 2011 the applicant requested financial assistance towards the cost associated with trying to obtain a criminal pardon. The applicant was convicted of a summary offence 25 years ago. According to the applicant her criminal record acts as a barrier toward accessing employment. Shortly after her request, the applicant was advised by the respondent that funds were not available within the ODSP to pay for a criminal pardon.
8The applicant’s position is that the denial of this benefit is discriminatory. According to the applicant, employment related expenses including the costs associated with obtaining a pardon where the criminal record may be a barrier to employment are available under the Ontario Works program. Thus if she were an “able-bodied” Ontario Works, as opposed to an ODSP recipient, she would be entitled to costs associated with obtaining a pardon.
9Having reviewed the materials and considered the oral submissions of the parties, I have concluded that this matter should move forward to a full hearing where the presiding adjudicator can dispose of the Application on a final basis. In my view, it would be premature to dispose of the Application at this stage.
10Pursuant to Rule 19A.6 I do not consider it necessary to provide further reasons for this Interim Decision. I cannot determine that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, the Application will move on to the next stage in the hearing process.
11The parties have indicated a willingness to mediate. The Registrar will provide the parties with an opportunity to participate in mediation prior to the hearing of this matter.
12I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of November, 2012.
”signed by”
__________________________________
Keith Brennenstuhl Vice-chair