HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Helen Chaiton
Applicant
- and-
Amica Mature Lifestyles Inc. and Frieda Rakowsky
Respondents
decision
Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie
Indexed as: Chaiton v. Amica Mature Lifestyles Inc.
APPEARANCES
Helen Chaiton, Applicant ) Self-represented
Amica Mature Lifestyles Inc., ) Mark Lugowski, Representative
Respondent )
Frieda Raykowski, Personal Respondent ) no one appearing
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 ancestry, family status, association with a person identified by a ground of discrimination and reprisal.
2On its own initiative, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing of the Application to determine if it had a reasonable prospect of success.
3The applicant’s father is a resident of a retirement home (Amica at Thornhill). The applicant has alleged that she has been prohibited from seeing her father. She has named Amica at Thornhill as a respondent. Amica at Thornhill is owned and operated by Amica Mature Lifestyles Inc. (“Amica”). The style of cause has been amended accordingly.
4The applicant has named Frieda Rakowsky as a respondent. Ms. Rakowsky is a resident of Amica at Thornhill and is a companion of the applicant’s father. She was provided with notice of the summary hearing, but did not attend. It is clear from the submissions of the applicant at the summary hearing that the dispute between the applicant and Ms. Rakowsky is a dispute between family members. Family disputes are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Application as against Ms. Rakowsky is dismissed.
5The applicant has alleged that Amica prevented her from visiting her father and told her that she would be charged with trespassing if she returned to Amica at Thornhill. She also alleges that a Rabbi who was accompanying her was also refused entry. Amica submits that it was acting on the instructions of the applicant’s father.
6As noted in the Case Assessment Direction dated September 21, 2011, the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only address alleged discrimination on the grounds set out in the Code. The concerns of the applicant relate to her relationship with her father. Her dispute is with him and his companion. Amica has carried out the instructions of the applicant’s father and has not discriminated against the applicant on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
7Accordingly, the Application against Amica is dismissed as demonstrating no reasonable prospect of success.
8The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of February, 2012.
”signed by”
Ian R. Mackenzie
Vice-chair