HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Roman Sokal
Applicant
-and-
Sheridan College, Vladimir Kabelik and Jean Desormeaux
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Sokal v. Sheridan College
APPEARANCES
Roman Sokal, Applicant
Self-represented
Sheridan College, Vladimir Kabelik and Jean Desormeaux, Respondents
Patricia Murray, Counsel
1This Decision relates to two Applications filed by the applicant under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination by both the organizational respondent and the two individual respondents.
2Application 2013-14168-I which was filed on April 10, 2013, alleges discrimination contrary to the Code on the basis of ethnic origin, disability, sexual solicitation, receipt of public assistance and reprisal with respect to employment, housing, services and contracts by the respondents Mr. Kabelik and Sheridan College (the "College").
3Application 2013-14851-I, which was filed on August 26, 2013, alleges discrimination contrary to the Code with respect to educational services and reprisal by the respondents Mr. Desormeaux and the College.
4The applicant was enrolled as a part–time student in the College's Advanced Television and Film Program taking some courses in the Fall of 2009 and one course in the Winter of 2011 at the College. The respondent Kabelik was a course instructor of the applicant in the Fall of 2009. The respondent Desormeaux is a Program Coordinator. The last course that the applicant was enrolled in at the College was during the Winter of 2011, which he did not complete.
5The Tribunal issued Case Assessment Directions for each Application which directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over some of the allegations in the Applications which appeared to be untimely and whether the Applications should be dismissed on the basis that they have no reasonable prospect of success. The respondents were directed not to file a Response for either Application.
6On September 18, 2013 the preliminary hearing was held via telephone conference during which the parties made submissions.
BACKGROUND
7The applicant believes that the respondents have been monitoring him since his enrollment with the school and have been contacting and disclosing his medical condition to members of the community. He alleges that the respondents locked him out of classrooms during his enrollment at the school.
8The Applications allege amongst other things the following:
a. That the individual respondents contacted prospective employers to convince them not to hire the applicant;
b. That one of the respondents groped his genitals in January or February 2010 and that the applicant rejected his sexual advances which was the reason why the respondents started stalking him. This incident allegedly occurred in the parking lot of the applicant's home;
c. That while on the internet the applicant discovered a website which was disguised as a "horoscope" site which in fact contained and disclosed to the public what he was up to until January 2013;
d. That the respondents broke into his computer accounts to delete emails, including those from prospective landlords and employers and to steal some of his intellectual property;
e. That the respondents paid the cable company and his landlord to interfere with his television so that it would flash derogatory and bizarre fictional messages to upset him;
f. The respondents "influenced" his roommate to attack him;
g. That the respondents paid off the hospital to access his confidential medical records;
h. That the respondents paid individuals to pretend to be homeless so that they could spy on him when he was in a homeless shelter;
i. That the respondents interfered with his ability to join a Church group by entering his email accounts and rerouting telephone lines to a third party telephone line; and
j. The applicant asserts that on January 23-28, 2013, the respondents confronted him and reprised against him on the basis that he had filed Applications against them. In this regard the applicant alleges that they filed false criminal charges against him. It should be noted that the two Applications where filed on April 10, 2013 and June 27, 2013, respectively.
9The respondents filed submissions in support of dismissing the Applications. On January 17, 2012 the College issued to the applicant a notice of trespass. Eventually, the applicant was charged with a number of criminal offences, including uttering death threats.
10The Criminal Court found that the applicant was not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder for three charges of criminal harassment involving the respondents. The Ontario Review Board ("ORB") in July 2013 made a finding that it is in fact the applicant that has criminally harassed and victimized the respondents. There is currently an order which prevents the applicant from having any direct or indirect contact with either of the individual respondents, or to enter on the College's Campus.
DECISION
11Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 8 and 9:
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.
12Having considered the matter I find that the Applications have no reasonable prospect of success. I have considered the totality of the proposed evidence to determine whether the Applications have no reasonable prospect of success.
13Neither the Code grounds of "housing" or "employment" apply in these circumstances because the applicant has never been in an employment relationship or rental relationship with any of the respondents. There is no evidence that the applicant could point to that would support the applicant's belief that the respondents interfered with either his housing or employment situations.
14With respect to the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to be a Code violation, it is clear that there has been no "service relationship" since at least 2011 when the applicant ceased attending the College. Further, with respect to the allegation that he was groped by one of the respondents in January or February 2010, I note that at that time this respondent was no longer the applicant's instructor, that the applicant was not enrolled at the College and that this allegedly occurred outside of the applicant's home. I find that, even if this allegation is true for the purposes of a summary hearing, that it did not arise during the "service relationship".
15During the summary hearing, the applicant stated that he believes that the discrimination may be with respect to "contract", because he entered into an agreement that the respondents do a documentary of his life and this may be why the respondents have been stalking him. There is no reference to this contract or document in either Application and the applicant was unable to point to any evidence that would support this allegation for the purposes of the summary hearing.
16I do however find that his allegations that he was subjected to discriminatory conduct while enrolled at the College in the Fall of 2009 arguably gives rise to a potential infringement of the Code. However, the applicant failed to propose any specifics to his allegations of discrimination. Therefore, I find that there is no proposed credible evidence articulated by the applicant and that these allegations have no reasonable prospect of success.
17With respect to reprisal the applicant has not proposed or identified any evidence for the purposes of the summary hearing which would support that the respondents were aware that the applicant had initiated or was going to initiate an Application at the Tribunal.
18I find that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
ORDER
19The Applications are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of December, 2013.
"Signed by"
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair