Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Avry Carty Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: December 18, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 2092 Indexed as: Carty v. Toronto (City)
Appearances
Avry Carty, Applicant Self-represented
City of Toronto, 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 race, colour, family status, marital status, and reprisal.
2The respondent operates a number of childcare centres in the city of Toronto. The applicant's son was registered in a number of these centres in 2010-2012. The Application concerns a conversation that took place on September 13, 2012 between the applicant and Mary Harhai. At the time of this conversation, Ms. Harhai was a Children’s Services Consultant and had worked in that position for the respondent for about 10 years. She worked in the Children’s Services Department for 35 years and retired earlier this year.
3The applicant alleges that Ms. Harhai made discriminatory comments during the September 13, 2012 conversation. In particular, she alleges that Ms. Harhai suggested that the applicant had multiple boyfriends and that the applicant was not a fit mother. The applicant alleges that these comments showed stereotypical assumptions about her as a single black woman. The applicant also alleges that Ms. Harhai was treating her unfairly because the applicant’s mother had been an employee of the respondent.
4The Application was heard on September 27, 2013.
5On September 26, 2013, the day before the hearing, Ms. Ceddia, the respondent's counsel, wrote to the Tribunal to advise that the respondent wanted to have a court reporter present at the hearing to record the proceedings and asking to be relieved from the requirement to order and produce a copy of a transcript of the recording at the respondent's cost. This request was dealt with in a Case Assessment Direction dated September 26, 2013 which directed as follows:
The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on recording hearings states that hearings are not generally recorded unless there is Code-related reason. The policy states:
The HRTO may permit a party to have a court reporter record the hearing at the party's expense, upon request and at its discretion. This practice is discouraged because court reporters may lead to more formality, cause delay and many parties lack the financial resources to obtain a court reporter or order a transcript.
When a court reporter is permitted, to ensure that all parties and the tribunal member have the ability to access the transcript, the party that has obtained the court reporter must normally have transcripts produced and provide copies to the Tribunal and the other parties at its own expense. The HRTO may waive this requirement, or make directions about the date the transcript must be produced. The official transcript will normally be considered part of the HRTO's record of proceedings and be included in the record filed in court in respect of any application for judicial review.
The respondent’s letter of September 26, 2013 does not indicate why the respondent feels that it is necessary to have a court reporter present. The letter also does not provide any case specific explanation for the request that it be relieved of the requirement to have a transcript produced from the recording. Instead the letter makes a general submission about the Practice Direction itself.
The respondent has not identified anything about this particular case that would provide a basis for a departure from the Tribunal’s normal practice.
The respondent may bring a court reporter to the hearing at its cost. If it does so, it must provide a copy of the transcript for the Tribunal and the applicant after the hearing.
6The respondent had a court reporter present at the hearing and provided a copy of the transcript of the hearing to the applicant and the Tribunal on October 11, 2013.
Events prior to the September 13, 2012 conversation
7The applicant's son was first registered in a childcare centre operated by the respondent in July 2010. The applicant is entitled to day care subsidy from the respondent. This is relevant to the background to the events alleged in the Application because there is usually a waiting list for subsidy day care spots.
8According to the respondent, between July 2010 and September 2012, the applicant moved her son in and out of seven different childcare centres. The respondent states that this many moves is highly unusual. The respondent usually requires parents who wish to change childcare centres to give notice so that another child can be offered a position. The respondent states that the applicant has usually not given notice resulting in extra costs which the respondent has waived.
9The applicant does not agree that her son was registered in seven child care centres. She said that she withdrew her son from the first centre because it was too far from her home. She withdrew him from the second centre because he came home with unexplained injuries