Heeley v. Community Access Care, 2012 HRTO 649

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Barbara Ann Heeley

Applicant

-and-

Community Access Care, Ranj Feduck and Blair Fraser

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Barbara Ann Heeley

Applicant

-and-

Community Access Care, Ranj Feduck and Blair Fraser

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: March 28, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 649

Indexed as: Heeley v. Community Access Care

APPEARANCES

Barbra Ann Heeley, Applicant ) Self-represented

Community Access Care, Respondent ) No one appearing

Ranj Feduck, Respondent ) Self-represented

Blair Fraser, Respondent ) No one appearing

1These are Applications 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 the area of housing and goods, services or facilities on the basis of family status.

2By Case Assessment Direction dated September 16, 2011, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held by teleconference. It stated as follows at paragraphs 5:

The Tribunal’s Registrar will schedule a half-day summary hearing by teleconference. The applicant will proceed first during the summary hearing. The applicant shall make argument about why the Application should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, and point to the evidence on which the applicant will prove a link between the respondents’ actions and the grounds cited.

ANALYSIS

Summary Hearings

3The summary hearing process is outlined in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In a summary hearing the issue is whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or a part thereof will succeed.

4In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 8-10, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:

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.

In considering what evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, the Tribunal must be attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, information about the reasons for the actions taken by a respondent are within the sole knowledge of the respondent. Evidence about the reasons for actions taken by a respondent may sometimes come through the disclosure process and through cross-examination of the people involved. The Tribunal must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that such evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination. However, when there is no reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities, the application must be dismissed following the summary hearing.

Application to the Facts

5The applicant’s 41 year old son is developmentally delayed and cannot take care of himself. He receives long term care and is at present residing in a nursing home. His needs are “high intensity” in nature and he requires the co-ordinated support of a variety of caregivers from the community. The applicant feels that she does not have the ability to deal with the various service providers required by her son; that she cannot deal with the “system” on her own. At times, she feels shut out particularly when her son is in a crisis. The applicant seeks the support of the Tribunal. In essence she asks that the Tribunal supervise or manage the delivery of her son’s care and when necessary be his advocate.

6Unfortunately, this is not within the Tribunal’s mandate. The Tribunal can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment on the grounds set out in the Code. I can appreciate the applicant’s concerns and understand that it can be very difficult at times for her and her son. However, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to over-see her son’s care.

7Under the circumstances there is no reasonable prospect that the Applications will succeed. Therefore, the Applications are dismissed.