HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Richard Russell Reiter
Applicant
- and-
St. Stephen’s Community House
Respondent
decision
Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie
Indexed as: Reiter v. St. Stephen’s Community House
APPEARANCES and wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Richard Russell Reiter, Applicant ) Self-represented
St. Stephen’s Community House, ) Bill Sinclair, Representative and Michael Respondent ) Smyth, 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 in goods, services and facilities on the basis of association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and reprisal.
2St. Stephen’s Community House is a non-profit charitable organization that provides a variety of community services in the Kensington Market area and surrounding neighbourhoods. Part of its services includes a drop-in centre primarily for men who are homeless, staying in local shelters, or living in surrounding rooming houses. Also included is a youth drop-in centre, services for new immigrants and 13 units of supportive housing. The respondent submitted that it has a “good neighbour” policy and has actively discouraged visitors to St. Stephen’s Community House from loitering or sitting on their neighbours’ properties.
3The applicant states that after using the drop-in services he sat on a park bench several doors down from St. Stephen’s. He alleges that he was told to move from the bench by staff of St. Stephen’s or be prevented from using its services. He submits that the respondent is interfering with his lawful enjoyment of property. He asserts that he has used that bench for many years and had never been asked to move before. He alleges that an employee of the respondent told him that the property owners did not want people from the drop-in centre sitting there. He alleges that he was not wanted there because of his association with equity-seeking groups that use the drop-in centre.
4The applicant also alleges that he faced a reprisal because he was told that unless he obeyed the rules of the good neighbour policy he would have to seek services elsewhere. He also alleges that the lack of response from the respondent to his concerns was a reprisal.
5The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) on September 14, 2011 ordering a summary hearing to determine whether this Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed. The respondent was not required to file a Response. The respondent did provide a written statement outlining its position.
6The CAD noted that the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with discrimination on the grounds set out in the Code. To succeed in an application, an applicant must be able to prove a link between a respondent’s alleged actions and a Code ground. The allegations raised by the applicant relate to property rights and the ability of St. Stephen’s to tell its clients where they can congregate. The applicant has not shown a link between his association with someone identified by a prohibited ground and the alleged actions of the respondent. He has not alleged that the “good neighbour” policy has been applied in a discriminatory manner.
7The reprisal section of the Code only applies to actions that are intended as a reprisal for asserting one’s human rights under the Code. See Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. 31. In his Application and in his submissions the applicant has not identified a reprisal or threat of reprisal for raising his rights under the Code.
8The applicant has not demonstrated a link between the actions of the respondent and a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code. He has also not identified a reprisal or threat of reprisal for raising his rights under the Code. In sum, he has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable prospect of success of the Application.
9Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 14^th^ day of February, 2012.
”signed by”________
Ian R. Mackenzie
Vice-chair