Asllani v. Neighbourhood Information Post, 2013 HRTO 1766

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sokol Asllani Applicant

-and-

Neighbourhood Information Post, Maja Sisgoreo, Gladys Wong, Merra Thiageshwaran, Ann Fung, John Patten, Eno Egbo-Egbo, Visnja Brcic, and Chris Drew Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: October 18, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1766 Indexed as: Asllani v. Neighbourhood Information Post

APPEARANCES

Sokol Asllani, Applicant Self-represented

Neighbourhood Information Post, Maja Sisgoreo, Gladys Wong, Merra Thiageshwaran, Ann Fung, John Patten, Eno Egbo-Egbo, Visnja Brcic, and Chris Drew, Respondents William D. Anderson, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and creed. The applicant, who is from Kosovo, self-identifies as a Muslim of Albanian ethnicity, and a person living with post-traumatic stress disorder.

2By Case Assessment Direction dated April 24, 2013, the Tribunal granted the respondents' Request and scheduled this matter for a Summary Hearing pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

3The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure as well as the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests.

4The test the Tribunal applies at this stage in the process is whether the Application has "no reasonable prospect of success". There is no burden of proof assigned to either party in a summary hearing. It is the role of the Tribunal to examine the allegations and determine whether or not an application should move ahead in the hearing process or be dismissed at this stage.

5The Tribunal is not empowered to remedy general allegations of unfairness in areas such as employment, services or accommodation. Discrimination in the legal sense requires proof that unfair treatment is based, at least in part, on a person's race, gender, disability or other prohibited ground under the Code. In other words, the ground must somehow be a factor in the adverse treatment. Where an application appears to be missing this connection, or where it would assist the Tribunal in better understanding the allegations, the parties are asked to participate in a summary hearing by teleconference.

6At the summary hearing stage, the Tribunal is not determining whether the applicant is telling the truth or assessing the impact of the treatment they experienced. Indeed, many experiences of unfairness which would not be considered discrimination in the legal sense can leave a person with significant financial and emotional damage. At this stage, the Tribunal assumes that the applicant is telling the truth when they allege, for example, that they were fired from their employment or denied a service unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary.

7However, accepting the basic fact that someone was terminated from their employment or denied a service does not include accepting the applicant's assumptions about why they were treated unfairly. The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine if there is evidence to support the applicant's belief that they have experienced discrimination.

8In order to proceed to a full hearing some evidence must exist, which goes beyond the applicant's feeling or belief that their personal characteristic played a role in what they experienced. That evidence comes in a variety of forms: the timing of a person's dismissal or discipline; comments alleged to have been made by the respondent; comparisons with how other people were treated. Many circumstances play a role in assisting the Tribunal in determining whether a person has experienced discrimination in the legal sense. However, if the applicant is unable to point to evidence beyond their own assumptions or belief, the application may be found to have no reasonable prospect of success.

9The primary focus in the summary hearing is on the applicant's evidence. The respondent's explanation may be considered where there is no dispute about the facts or where it is plainly obvious that a fact must be true. However, the Tribunal is very careful to ensure that an application is not dismissed at the summary hearing stage simply because the respondent has an alternative explanation of the events. The Tribunal is mindful of the fact that in some cases an application must proceed further in the hearing process because the respondent is the party who has control over the evidence which could favour the applicant's case.

10In this case, the applicant was given an opportunity to make submissions to assist the Tribunal in understanding the connection between the respondent's actions and the prohibited grounds alleged. The respondent also made submissions in support of dismissing the Application.

11The organizational respondent is a non-profit community centre which provides assistance to marginalized and socially isolated members of the community. The individual respondents are employees or Board members. The applicant uses the public computers offered by the centre.

12The applicant alleges that in the course of attempting to use the computers offered by the centre, he has been treated disrespectfully by one of the organizational respondent's employees. The applicant alleges that this person was aggressive and hostile toward him and he attributes her behaviour to her own ethnic origin. The applicant alleges that he has been yelled at and told that he cannot use the computers despite having followed the rules. The applicant alleges that he has not observed anyone else being treated in this fashion and that he himself has not experienced this kind of treatment in other places offering public access to computers such as public libraries. The applicant also alleges that when he complained about this behaviour he was told his concerns would be dealt with, however, they were not resolved to the applicant's satisfaction.

13The respondents dispute the applicant's assertion that he followed the rules and allege that the applicant was difficult and behaved inappropriately at times.

14If I accept the applicant's allegations that he was treated inappropriately in attempting to access the organizational respondent's computer services, the only connection the applicant can make to the prohibited grounds set out in the Application, is based on his assumptions and suspicions. The applicant believes that he was treated in a hostile manner by one staff member in particular because she is of Serbian ancestry. The staff member in question denies that she is of Serbian ancestry. However, the applicant persists in his belief and attributes her behaviour to cultural animosity.

15Accepting the applicant's allegation that he was mistreated in the course of accessing the organizational respondent's services, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that he can succeed under the Code. The applicant's allegations are based on assumptions about another person's ancestry rather than on evidence which would support a breach of the Code.

16Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.