Waskowec v. Cramahe (Municipality), 2013 HRTO 1149

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Waskowec Applicant

-and-

Municipiality of the Township of Cramahe, Marc Coombs, Jim Williams, Clinton Breau, Ed Van Egmond, Pat Westrope, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of the Attorney General, John Gerretson, and Jim Watson Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: July 3, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1149 Indexed as: Waskowec v. Cramahe (Municipality)

APPEARANCES

Peter Waskowec, Applicant Self-represented

Municipality of the Township of Cramahe, Marc Coombs, Jim Williams, Clinton Breau, Ed Van Egmond, Pat Westrope, Respondents Melissa Seal, Counsel

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of the Attorney General, and John Gerretson, Respondents Kisha Chatterjee, Counsel

Jim Watson, Respondent David Patacairk, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on October 31, 2012 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to services because of ancestry, ethnic origin, and age.

2In his Application, the applicant describes many hardships that he faced over many years for which he holds the respondents responsible, particularly alleged hardships stemming from how representatives of the Municipality of the Township of Cramahe dealt with his land and his taxes.

3In the section of the Application which asked the applicant to explain why he believes he was discriminated against because of his ancestry and ethnic origin, the applicant wrote:

The municipality refuses to provide me with legally correct tax bills and receipts so they could sell off parts of my farm in fraudulent land tax sales to family and friends and have done so… Because I am a senior citizen of Slavic ancestry the municipality and their lawyer believe I am not smart enough to figure out what they do.

4In the section of the Application which asked the applicant to explain why he believes he was discriminated against because of age, the applicant wrote, "It is a common misconception among younger people that a person becomes senile and loses acuity once they become senior citizens."

5In the section of the Application which asked the applicant to explain why he believes he was reprised against, the applicant wrote that he enraged the municipality by informing its representatives that they were in violation of the Municipal Act and the Canadian Criminal Code, and they consequently reprised against him.

6The Tribunal noted that the applicant may be unable to prove a link between the grounds he alleges and the incidents he describes, and may be unable to establish that the actions of the respondents were intended as a reprisal for asserting his rights under the Code. The Tribunal therefore issued a Case Assessment Direction on March 21, 2013, directing that a summary hearing be held by teleconference to determine whether there was no reasonable prospect of success.

SUBMISSIONS FOR SUMMARY HEARING

7The applicant filed written submissions in advance of the summary hearing. The Municipality of the Township of Cramahe and the respondents related to the Municipality also filed written submissions. The respondents agreed to withdraw their written submissions at the summary hearing, when the applicant said that he wanted to read from additional lengthy submissions that he had not filed, but that he had prepared to address arguments raised in the respondents' written submissions, particularly those related to issues other than whether there was no reasonable prospect of success for the Application given the apparent lack of any links between the alleged conduct of the respondents and reprisal, ancestry, ethnic origin or age. With the respondents' written submissions withdrawn, the summary hearing dealt only with the issue of whether there was no reasonable prospect of success for the Application.

ANALYSIS

8Rule 19A.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provides:

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.

9In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, the Tribunal made the following comments at paras. 8-10:

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.

10At the summary hearing, the applicant explained that there is a long history of how the respondents have been trying to "grab" his land since he bought it in 1982. He described instances of the respondents scrutinizing his movements on his land, dumping contaminated soil on his property, and arranging with provincial entities that he be harassed for perceived infractions related to his truck. The applicant stated, however, that he has never received any communication from the respondents that refers to his ancestry, ethnic origin or age.

11The Tribunal directed the applicant to focus in his argument on explaining how the conduct of the respondents was linked to reprisal as defined in the Code and on the grounds that he cited in his Application: ancestry, ethnic origin and age. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide examples of the respondents' conduct which best demonstrate reprisal and discrimination as defined in the Code.

12The applicant described how he is an outsider in the community because he comes from Eastern Europe and is Slavic in contrast to the people in positions of power with the Municipality who have English and French ancestry. He believes that the respondents have been fraudulent and criminal in their dealings with him because he is not of the same ancestry as them. As an example, he explained that he asked for certain tax bills related to his property, but was denied. He asserts that there can be no legitimate reason for such a denial; therefore he argues that he is entitled to conclude that the denial is because of his ancestry, ethnic origin and age.

13Another example he provided is his belief that the respondents arranged for separate criminal assaults on his nephews to send him a message. He also believes that the reason for which one of his nephews received allegedly bad care from a hospital was because his name is the same as the applicant's.

14The applicant also believes that the Municipality's alleged dumping of contaminated soil on his property was in reprisal for having filed his Application, but he could not point to any evidence to support his belief.

15Having read the applicant's Application and submissions and having heard his oral submissions at the summary hearing, I conclude that the applicant has no evidence to support his allegations of violations of the Code. Given the applicant's inability to point to evidence, it does not matter that the applicant states that he "knows" the respondents' conduct is because of the grounds he cites in his Application or because of reprisal. Without evidence, he can merely suppose. Mere supposition or belief is not sufficient for the applicant to meet the burden of proof required of him. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, at para. 17.

16Without any evidence or the reasonable prospect that such evidence is available to him in order to link the alleged conduct of the respondents to the applicant's ancestry, ethnic origin, age or reprisal for having claimed or for having tried to enforce his rights under the Code, the applicant has no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the respondents discriminated against him because of those grounds, or reprised against him contrary to the Code.

ORDER

17The Application is dismissed.