Darrell Villa v. Toronto City Hall, 2013 HRTO 1861

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darrell Villa

Applicant

-and-

Toronto City Hall

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: November 6, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1861

Indexed as: Villa v. Toronto City Hall

APPEARANCES

Darrell Villa, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto City Hall, Respondent

Antonella Ceddia, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

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.

2The Application arises out of the process established by the respondent for the appointment of individuals to its Disability Issues Committee in 2012. The applicant applied to be a member of the committee but was not selected. The applicant, who is a deaf person, alleges that the people who were appointed do not adequately represent the interests of deaf people in Toronto because none of them are deaf. The applicant believes that he was fully qualified to serve on the committee and that he should have been selected so that there would be a deaf person on the committee. The applicant suggests that there may have been an economic motive for not appointing him because the committee would have been required to provide sign language interpreters for all meetings.

3After the Application was received, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, directed a summary hearing to determine if the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent was not required to file a Response.

4The summary hearing process is outlined in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Details about the process are discussed in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Summary Hearings which states:

A summary hearing usually considers:

• whether, assuming all of the allegations are true, the Application has no 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; and/or

• whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated by the respondent(s). The applicant has to show that he or she can make a link between the event that led to the Application and the alleged ground(s) of discrimination.

5The Tribunal does not hear evidence in a summary hearing. It instead hears what evidence the applicant expects to be able to call if the Application proceeds to a hearing on the merits. The Tribunal must then assess whether the evidence that the applicant proposes to call is likely to establish that the discrimination alleged occurred.

6An in-person summary hearing was held on October 23, 2013. Two sign language interpreters were present to interpret the proceedings.

BACKGROUND

7The respondent's Disability Issues Committee was established in 1999. According to the Terms of Reference for the committee:

the Disability Issues Committee will provide its advice to City Council on the elimination of barriers faced by people with disabilities and to act as a liaison with external bodies on barriers to participation in public life and to the achievement of social, cultural and economic well-being of people with disabilities.

8There are 12 members of the committee and the Terms of Reference provides that the “majority of the representatives will be people with disabilities as defined by the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001”.

9In 2012 the respondent issued an invitation for applications for membership on the committee. According to the respondent, it received 48 applications for the 12 positions. Three of these were excluded because they did not meet the criteria. The remaining 45 applications were reviewed by city staff, who selected 23. These 23 applications plus the original 45 applications were reviewed by three City Counselors who selected a final list of 23 to be interviewed for the 12 positions. The applicant was not a member of this list, and so he was not interviewed for the position.

10One of the applicants who was selected to be on the committee is a Regional Director of the Canadian Hearing Society. She is not a deaf person. The applicant alleges that while this person may be qualified to be on the committee, since she is not herself deaf, she cannot bring the same perspective that he would.

11According to the respondent, while the committee is comprised of representatives who are people with disabilities, there is no intention that any particular disability be represented. In particular, in respect of this Application, there is no requirement that a member of the committee be a deaf person. According to the respondent, a deaf person has been a member of the committee in the past. According to the respondent one of the 23 people who was interviewed was a deaf person, but that person was not selected to fill one of the 12 positions.

12At the hearing, the applicant reviewed his personal history, including experiences that he feels would make him qualified to be a member of the committee. He said that he has traveled widely and has noted how various jurisdictions have reduced or eliminated barriers for deaf people. He has been active in various groups that advocate on behalf of disability issues. He has held a senior position with the Government of Ontario.

13The applicant was asked to clarify what evidence he would have available to prove his allegation that the decision to not interview him for a position on the committee was discriminatory. The applicant identified three factors. First, the applicant believes that he is fully qualified to be a member of the committee. Second, he notes that currently there is no one on the committee who is deaf. Third, the applicant alleges that the decision to not interview him was influenced by the costs of sign language interpreters that would be associated with his membership on the committee.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

14The applicant does not allege that any of the members of the committee are not qualified. He only alleges that he too is qualified and that he believes he would be better able to represent the interests of the deaf community than the Regional Manager of the Canadian Hearing Society who was appointed.

15While the applicant may be qualified to be a member of the committee, there is no suggestion that the other members of the committee who were interviewed and appointed are not also qualified. The mere fact that the applicant was not selected for an interview is clearly not evidence of discrimination.

16There is no requirement that the committee have a member who is deaf, and so the fact that there is not a deaf person who is currently a member of the committee is also not evidence of discrimination.

17The applicant was unable to identify any evidence that would prove his allegation that the cost of sign language interpreters was a factor in the decision to not interview him. He did note that a deaf person was interviewed but not selected, and suggested that this proves his allegation. The fact that a deaf person was interviewed and not selected does not support the applicant's allegation that the reason he was not selected for an interview had anything to do with the cost of sign language interpretation.

18Having heard the applicant's allegations and his explanation of how he might go about proving his allegations, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could successfully prove that the decision to not interview him for a position on the committee was in any way discriminatory. The Application is dismissed on that basis.