HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Joel Shuster
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Shuster v. Ontario (Attorney General)
APPEARANCES
Joel Shuster, Applicant
Self-represented
Her majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Respondent
Judith Parker, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.
2On March 12, 2013 the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 420 which directed the parties to make submissions on a number of issues including whether the Application had no reasonable prospect of success.
3For the reasons that follow the Application is dismissed.
Background
4The applicant was the defendant in actions brought at the Small Claims Court. Judgement was granted to the plaintiffs, who are not parties to this Application, and the applicant was ordered to pay damages.
5The applicant sought advice from a lawyer for the purposes of seeking an appeal of the judgement. The lawyer advised the applicant that he required written transcripts of the proceeding for the purposes of determining whether an appeal would be successful.
6The applicant contacted the Court and when he was advised of the cost to obtain the transcripts, he refused to pay for them. . The applicant brought a motion to the Small Claims Court, without notice to the Attorney General, and an order was granted which provided that if the Court Reporter consented to the request, that the applicant could listen to the recordings of the transcript. The Court Reporter did not consent and advised the applicant that he needed to order the transcripts and that he could listen to the tapes after he had paid for the transcripts.
7The applicant alleges in the Application that he has a hearing impediment and that the respondent’s refusal to let him hear the recording of the proceeding is discriminatory. The applicant advised the Tribunal that he never requested accommodation prior to filing this Application. The applicant’s submissions focussed on his allegations that the original judgement in favour of the plaintiffs was biased. He believes that it is unfair to require a party to pay for the costs of the transcripts.
Decision
8The decision in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8 and 9, sets out the test to be applied at 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.
9I have considered the submissions of the parties, and the documents filed and for the reasons that follow I find that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
10In order to be successful, the applicant must establish that the requirement that a party pay for written transcripts is either discriminatory and/or has an adverse impact on him because of his alleged hearing impediment. The transcripts are in writing and the applicant’s disability does not interfere with his ability to read. Therefore the requirement that a party pay for written transcripts does not adversely impact the applicant and he does not require accommodation under the Code. The applicant’s request to hear the transcripts has no connection to his disability. There is no reason related to the Code which would prevent the applicant from obtaining and reading the transcripts and paying for them. Therefore, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
11In light of my determination that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success, I will not address the other preliminary issues.
12The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 3 day of July, 2013.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair