HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robel Tibebu Demisse aka Fasil Tsegaye Azere
Applicant
-and-
Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”), Jim Watson, Kathleen Kennedy, Chris Tuck, Meghan Kennedy, Laila Demirdache, Mike Bell, Me Emmanuelle Jean, The Registry, Centretown Community Health Centre, Ottawa Police, Gilles Charbonneau, Ottawa General Hospital, Civic Carling Hospital, TD Canada Bank, The Ottawa Mission, Shepherds of Good Hope, Salvation Army, Main Ottawa Public Library and Jason Kenney
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price
Date: May 7, 2012
Citation: 2012 HRTO 910
Indexed as: Demisse v. Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”)
[1] In this Application, filed on September 7, 2011 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of creed and receipt of public assistance with respect to goods, services and facilities; housing; and contracts. In his Application, the applicant identifies himself as a “born again Christian who believes in Christ Jesus” and asserts that he has been attacked on spiritual grounds. However, in the Application that he filed with the Tribunal, the applicant does not identify any specific acts of alleged discrimination by the respondents.
[2] Thus, on January 31, 2012, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application on two bases:
That the Application as against CBSA, Jason Kenney, and TD Canada Bank appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because these respondents appear to be federal government departments, agencies, or federally regulated businesses or services that fall under federal, and not provincial, jurisdiction.
That the Application as against Jim Watson, Kathleen Kennedy, Chris Tuck, Meghan Kennedy, Laila Demirdache, Mike Bell, Me Emmanuelle Jean, The Registry, Center Town Community Health Centre, Ottawa Police, Gilles Charbonneau, Ottawa General Hospital, Civic Carling Hospital, The Ottawa Mission, Shepherds of Good Hope, Salvation Army, and Main Ottawa Public Library appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents.
[3] The January 31, 2012 Notice of Intent to Dismiss gave the applicant an opportunity to make written submissions to the Tribunal explaining how the Application raises issues that are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide (i.e. whether the Application contains allegations that the respondents discriminated against the applicant contrary to the Code).
[4] In his March 6, 2012 written submissions, sent in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant maintains that Jim Watson, Kathleen Kennedy, Chris Tuck, Meghan Kennedy, Laila Demirdache, Mike Bell, The Registry, Centretown Community Health Centre, Ottawa General Hospital, Civic Carling Hospital, The Ottawa Mission, Shepherds of Good Hope, Salvation Army, and Main Ottawa Public Library infringed his rights under the Code and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Application as against such respondents. Specifically, the applicant makes the following submissions in support of his position that his Application raises issues under the Code that are within the Tribunal’s power to decide:
The applicant submits that, in or around February 2011, he was physically attacked because he could not stay in “the shelter”. The applicant submits that respondents Kathleen Kennedy and Chris Tuck (who, according to the applicant, work with Community and Social Services in the City of Ottawa) and Meghan Kennedy (who, according to the applicant, is an ODSP case manager) purposely delayed the applicant’s paperwork, thereby depriving him of social assistance benefits. The applicant further submits that when he asked for assistance, these respondents caused him to be sworn at by other people and to be arrested. The applicant submits that this constituted discrimination with respect to housing; goods, services and facilities; and contracts.
Although the applicant’s submissions on this point are far from clear, it appears that the applicant contends that when he asked community legal clinic lawyers and/or staff Laila Demirdache and Mike Bell to help him, Mike Bell warned the applicant that unless the clinic continued representing the applicant, he would spend his life in jail and/or a shelter. The applicant submits that this constituted discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities; and contracts.
The applicant submits that, after eight months, the respondent “The Registry” has still not provided the applicant with a suitable place to live. He submits that this constities discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities.
The applicant submits that when he sought services from the respondents Centretown Community Health Center, Ottawa General Hospital and Civic Carling Hospital, different workers at those institutions “knocked doors”, released cold venitaltion air, and swore, and either threatened to detain the applicant in the mental health section against his will and/or did detain the applicant in the mental health section against his will (the submissions are unclear on this point). The applicant submits that these actions constituted discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities; and contracts.
The applicant submits that the respondent Main Ottawa Public Library tortured the applicant by using swear words, “by releasing cold ventilation air”, and by showing the applicant its security officers. The applicant submits that this constituted discrimination under the Code with respect to goods, services and facilities; and contracts.
The applicant submits that, starting in January 2011, the respondent shelters, the Ottawa Mission, Shepherds of Good Hope, and Salvation Army, tried to torture and kill the applicant by fighting in front of him, swearing at him, by knocking and slapping doors, by drugging and sexually assaulting the applicant while he slept, and by showing the applicant people injecting drugs in their necks to disturb his peace of mind. The applicant submits that these alleged actions constituted discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities; and contracts.
The applicant submits that when he communicated to respondent Jim Watson, Mayor of the City of Ottawa, that he needed to be given a safe place to live, the respondent sent the applicant back to the same places where he had been attacked and left outside in the cold to die. The applicant submits that this constituted discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities; and contracts.
[5] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power) to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code, which, among other things, prohibits discrimination and harassment with respect to goods, services and facilitites; housing; and contracts on the basis of the grounds set out in the Code. (Some prohibited grounds of discrimination do not apply with respect to all social areas. For example, receipt of public assistance is a prohibited ground of discrimination with respect to housing only.) The Tribunal does not have a general power to deal with claims of mistreatment or abuse that are not based on prohibited grounds under the Code.
[6] It is obvious from a review of the Application that the applicant, who was homeless at the time he filed the Application, has experienced significant hardship. However, there are no facts alleged in the Application that connect the respondents’ alleged actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination and/or harassment under the Code.
[7] The applicant alleges that the respondents have mistreated and abused him in various ways. However, as noted above, allegations of mistreatment and abuse do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the absence of a claim that such mistreatment and abuse was based on a prohibited ground under the Code and a factual basis for such claim. In his March 2012 submissions, the applicant contends that the respondents’ actions constitute discrimination with respect to various social areas under the Code (i.e. goods, services facilitites; housing; contracts). However, there is nothing in the applicant’s submissions to link the respondents’ alleged actions to his creed and/or the fact that he was in receipt of public assistance.
[8] Thus, I find that the Application as against Jim Watson, Kathleen Kennedy, Chris Tuck, Meghan Kennedy, Laila Demirdache, Mike Bell, The Registry, Centretown Community Health Centre, Ottawa General Hospital, Civic Carling Hospital, The Ottawa Mission, Shepherds of Good Hope, Salvation Army, and Main Ottawa Public Library does not raise matters that are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide. The Application as against these respondents is dismissed accordingly. It is important to note that this finding is made on the basis of the applicant’s unproven allegations; in finding that the applicant’s allegations are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, I have made no finding that the events themselves occurred as alleged.
[9] In his March 2012 submissions, the applicant does not address whether the Application identifies any acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code committed by the respondents Me Emmanuelle Jean, Ottawa Police, or Gilles Charbonneau. In October 2011 correspondence with the Tribunal, the applicant submits that the Ottawa Police “work with others to harass him”, but he does not link the respondent’s alleged actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code. Since there is nothing in either the Application or the applicant’s written submissions to link these respondents’ alleged actions (to the extent that there are any alleged actions) to his creed and/or the fact that he was in receipt of public assistance, I find that the Application as against Me Emmanuelle Jean, Ottawa Police, and Gilles Charbonneau does not raise matters that are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide. The Application as against Me Emmanuelle Jean, Ottawa Police, and Gilles Charbonneau is dismissed accordingly.
[10] As for the respondents Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”), Jason Kenney, and TD Canada Bank, in his March 6, 2012 written submissions, the applicant concedes, and I find, that the Application as against these respondents falls under federal and not provincial jurisdiction and is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Application as against CBSA, Jason Kenney, and TD Canada Bank is dismissed accordingly.
[11] Even if I were not to dismiss the Application as against CBSA, Jason Kenney, and TD Canada Bank on the basis that it falls under federal and not provincial jurisdiction, I would dismiss it on the basis that there is nothing to link these respondents’ alleged actions (to the extent that there are any alleged actions) to the applicant’s creed and/or the fact that he was in receipt of public assistance; and that the Application as against CBSA, Jason Kenney, and TD Canada Bank thus does not raise matters that are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide.
[12] For all of the above reasons, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of May, 2012.
“signed by”
Sheri D. Price
Vice-chair