HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Richard Bishop
Applicant
-and-
Hamilton Entertainment and Convention Facilities Inc., City of Hamilton, and Collectrite-Hamilton
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie
Indexed as: Bishop v. Hamilton Entertainment and Convention Facilities Inc.
APPEARANCES
Richard Bishop, Applicant ) Self-represented
City of Hamilton and Hamilton Entertainment ) and Convention Centre, Respondent ) Byrdena M. MacNeil, Counsel
Collectrite-Hamilton, Respondent ) Michael Andrews, Representative
1The applicant filed an Application 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 services on the basis of disability and also alleging a reprisal under section 8 of the Code. This Decision determines whether the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
2The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) on May 9, 2011. The CAD ordered a summary hearing by teleconference to address whether the Application had no reasonable prospect of success pursuant to Rule 19A, and whether the allegations had been appropriately dealt with in another legal proceeding pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code. I have determined, for the reasons set out in this Decision, that the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success. I do not therefore need to address the issue of whether the allegations have been appropriately dealt with in the related Small Claims Court proceeding.
3The teleconference hearing was originally scheduled for October 20, 2011. The applicant did not attend and I heard the respondents’ submissions on the s. 45(1) issue. The applicant contacted the Tribunal the following day to advise that he had not been able to attend because of technical difficulties. In an Interim Decision I ordered a re-hearing of the summary hearing. See 2012 HRTO 29.
4The teleconference hearing was conducted on March 22, 2012.
Background
5The applicant is the president and executive director of Community Functionality Facilitation Inc. (“CFF”), a non-profit organization based in Hamilton that assists persons with disabilities in obtaining services.
6The CFF entered into a contract with the respondent Hamilton Entertainment and Convention Facilities (“HECFI”) to rent facilities for a Disability Awareness Event. Eight days prior to the scheduled event, CFF cancelled the event because it failed to secure government funding for it. HECFI charged a cancellation fee. It attempted to collect the cancellation fee from CFF through the services of the respondent Collectrite-Hamilton (“Collectrite”), a collection agency. A Small Claims Court action was commenced against CFF.
Submissions
7The applicant stated that he was not alleging that the debt itself was discriminatory. He was alleging rather that the methods employed by the respondent Collectrite were discriminatory. He submitted that the respondent City of Hamilton and HECFI are also liable because Collectrite was acting on their behalf.
8In his Application, the applicant alleged that he was being attacked personally by the respondents because he was disabled. He also alleged that the credit consequences of the debt collection would affect his independence.
9The applicant relied on the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, SO 2005, c 11 (“AODA”) and its Regulations, in particular Accessibility Standards for Customer Service, O Reg 429/07, which states:
- (1) Every provider of goods or services shall establish policies, practices and procedures governing the provision of its goods or services to persons with disabilities.
(2) The provider shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that its policies, practices and procedures are consistent with the following principles:
The goods or services must be provided in a manner that respects the dignity and independence of persons with disabilities.
The provision of goods or services to persons with disabilities and others must be integrated unless an alternate measure is necessary, whether temporarily or on a permanent basis, to enable a person with a disability to obtain, use or benefit from the goods or services.
Persons with disabilities must be given an opportunity equal to that given to others to obtain, use and benefit from the goods or services.
10The applicant stated that this required that he be treated in a manner that “respects the dignity and independence of persons with disabilities”. He submits that the respondents’ actions did not meet this standard and, accordingly, he had been discriminated against. He stated that since CFF is a non-profit corporation; it was not appropriate for him to be served personally with court documents. He also alleges that he was called multiple times by Collectrite and harassed by them. He also alleges that Collectrite phoned and served documents at his parents’ address, which he states was not appropriate.
11The City of Hamilton was not a party to the rental agreement and was not responsible for the subsequent legal action. It submitted that since there were no specific allegations against it, the Application should be dismissed as against the City.
12HECFI submitted that it had no legal responsibility for the actions of Collectrite. It also submitted that the AODA was not triggered by their actions. It submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under the AODA as there was a separate process for compliance. It submitted that any director of a corporation can be served with documents and to do so is not discriminatory under the Code. It also submitted that the issue of the number of phone calls made was resolved in the Small Claims Court proceeding.
13The respondent Collectrite stated that it followed regular procedures in making efforts to collect the debt owing to its client.
Decision
14I find that the City of Hamilton had no involvement in the dispute between CFF and HECFI. Accordingly, the Application as against it is dismissed.
15For the reasons set out below, I have concluded that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
16The nature of a summary hearing has been set out in Dabic v. Windsor Police Services, 2010 HRTO 1994. The focus of this hearing is on whether, assuming all the allegations to be true, there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can show a link between what happened to him and the prohibited grounds of disability and reprisal.
17The Tribunal does not have the power to address allegations of unfairness in the general sense. It can only address allegations of discrimination based on the grounds set out in the Code.
18The applicant alleges that he was reprised against for filing his Application, because his parents were served with court documents immediately after he filed the Application. The process of collecting a debt owing was underway before the filing of his Application. The reprisal section of the Code only applies to actions that are intended as a reprisal for asserting one’s human rights under the Code (Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. 31). Continuing to make efforts to collect a debt does not demonstrate an intent to reprise against the applicant. Service of court documents at an address connected with the individual being served is in the normal course of debt collection and the applicant could point to no evidence that would demonstrate that this was done in response to the filing of his Application.
19The Tribunal does not enforce the AODA. There is a statutory framework for Director’s orders and administrative penalties set out in the AODA at sections 21 to 25.
20The applicant is not able to provide any evidence that would show a link between what happened to him (the debt collection process) and his disability. He asserts a right to be treated with dignity and respect but has only made a bald allegation that he was “harassed” by the debt collection agency because they knew he was vulnerable as a disabled person. He is not able to point to any evidence that will show that he was treated differently than any other director of a corporation that has a debt owing, or that his disability was a factor in the treatment he received.
21Without determining whether or not the applicant is personally liable for the debts of CFF, the possible financial consequences of the debt collection on the applicant does not demonstrate a link between the debt collection and his disability. The financial consequences, if any, are related to his income and the fact that a debt was incurred for which he may be liable, not his disability
22Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of April, 2012.
”signed by”____________
Ian R. Mackenzie
Member