HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Cathy Ruggles
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Transit Commission
Respondent
decision
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Ruggles v. Toronto Transit Commission
APPEARANCES
Cathy Ruggles, Applicant ) Self-represented
Toronto Transit Commission, Respondent ) Marni Tolensky, Counsel
1This is an Application filed November 30, 2009, under section 34 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 race and colour. The hearing of the Application occurred on November 14 and 15, 2011.
Decision
2For the reasons which follow I dismiss the Application.
3The applicant, who identifies herself as a black Canadian, complains of discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities because of three incidents involving a particular vehicle operator, Mary Caesar, employed by the respondent, the Toronto Transit Commission (the “TTC”). I heard evidence from the applicant and Ms. Caesar as well as three other TTC employees: Claudio Caschera, Roger Caramanico and Bruno Papa. I received 11 exhibits into evidence, including an audio recording. I have set out below a summary of the material evidence and I have addressed any disputes in the evidence, along with the reasons for my findings.
Transfers
4The rules regarding the proper use of transfers on TTC vehicles feature prominently in this matter and it is useful at the outset to record the relevant rules. The rules for riders using transfers are set out on the back of each transfer and the rules material to this Application are as follows:
This transfer can be used at TTC transfer points for a one way continuous trip with no backtracking. Most direct route must be taken.
The First Incident, February 26, 2009
5On February 26, 2009, the applicant took the #37 bus south from Woodbine to Rathburn and Islington, a transfer point, where she waited for the #48 bus. The #37 bus runs north/south to Islington Subway Station and the #48 bus goes to Royal York Subway Station. The #48 bus arrived in due course and Ms. Caesar was the vehicle operator. The applicant testified that she boarded the bus with a transfer she obtained on the #37 bus. Her evidence was that Ms. Caesar did not look at her or the transfer as she boarded. The bus departed and the applicant stated that she remembered that she needed to run an errand and therefore decided to take the bus to the subway station, where she would take a bus to a grocery store on the Queensway. As the bus passed Strath Humber Court, about halfway to Royal York Station, the bus operator asked the applicant to come to the front of the bus to speak with her, which the applicant found embarrassing. When she arrived at the front of the bus, Ms. Caesar, asked her if she was going to the subway station and she confirmed that she was. Ms. Caesar then asked the applicant about her transfer and the applicant stated that she had shown it to her when she boarded. Ms. Caesar stated that she had not seen it; therefore, the applicant showed it to her again. Ms. Caesar then informed the applicant that she was not taking the most direct route to her destination. The applicant asked Ms. Caesar why she cared about her destination and what difference her route would make, to which Ms. Caesar replied that she was interested because the applicant was not taking the most direct route. The conversation ended when the bus pulled up to the subway station, where the applicant thanked Ms. Caesar for her concern and exited the bus.
6In cross-examination, the