Marlon Clarke v. Filmores Hotel, 2012 HRTO 371

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marlon Clarke

Applicant

-and-

Filmores Hotel

Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: February 22 , 2012

Indexed as: 2012 HRTO 371

APPEARANCES

Marlon Clarke, Applicant ) Self-represented )

Filmores Hotel, Respondent ) Howard Adams, Representative )

BACKGROUND

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”).

2Pursuant to s. 43(2) of the Code and Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, a summary hearing by teleconference was held before me on February 1, 2012. The purpose of the summary hearing was to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that it would succeed.

3Marlon Clarke participated in the summary hearing on his own behalf. The respondent’s representative also participated and made oral submissions. The Application was also considered by me.

ANALYSIS

4Rule 19A.1 reads as follows:

19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an 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.

5In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 7-9, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:

A summary hearing is generally ordered at an early stage in the process. In some cases, the respondent may not have been required to provide a response. In others, the respondent may have responded but disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and the preparation of witness statements, which generally occur following the Notice of Hearing, will not yet have happened.

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.

6The applicant alleges that he experienced discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, disability, creed, sexual orientation, family status, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance and association with a person identified by a Code ground.

7The applicant has filed written materials, including banking records, along with his Application. The documents are not relevant to the claim of discrimination being advanced or to the particular party named in the Application as the respondent.

8In his oral submissions, the applicant explained the basis of his claim of discrimination against the respondent. He alleges that in the late spring or summer of 2010, he was unsure of the exact date, he was on the respondent’s premises and was, “escorted out of the club” by the respondent’s staff before the establishment’s closing time.

9The applicant self-identifies as a “man of colour”. During the course of the hearing I asked the applicant if he had any evidence that his removal from the respondent establishment was in any way related to his race or colour. The applicant answered, “No I don’t”.

10The applicant also advised that he had no evidence of discrimination on any other Code-related grounds.

11Having reviewed the Application, the materials filed and having heard from the applicant, I find nothing in the allegations that suggest that the respondent treated the applicant in a differential manner or that caused him disadvantage on the basis of the numerous grounds that he has identified.

12In my view, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will succeed in establishing a breach of the Code in respect of his allegations.

ORDER

13Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.