HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kidist Woldearegay
Applicant
-and-
Kitchener Waterloo Police Services Board, Robertson Brown Health Services and Bayshore Home Health Services
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Woldearegay v. Kitchener Waterloo Police Services Board
APPEARANCES
Kidist Woldearegay, Applicant Self-represented
Kitchener Waterloo Police Services Board, Respondent Gary Melanson, Counsel
Robertson Brown Health Services, Respondent Kerry Morrison-Saudade, Representative
Bayshore Home Health Services Sharaf Sultan, Representative Respondent
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 goods, services and facilities because of race. The applicant identifies as Ethiopian. She participated in the hearing with an Amharic interpreter.
2By Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") dated September 13, 2012, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held by teleconference. It stated as follows at paragraph 5:
The Registrar will schedule a half-day summary hearing by teleconference. The applicant will proceed first during the summary hearing. The applicant shall make argument about why the Application should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, and point to the evidence on which the applicant will prove a link between the respondents' actions and the ground cited. No witnesses will give evidence during the summary hearing.
ANALYSIS
Summary Hearing
3The summary hearing process is outlined in Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. In a summary hearing the issue is whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part thereof will succeed.
4In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 8 – 10, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in 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.
In considering what evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, the Tribunal must be attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, information about the reasons for the actions taken by a respondent are within the sole knowledge of the respondent. Evidence about the reasons for actions taken by a respondent may sometimes come through the disclosure process and through cross-examination of the people involved. The Tribunal must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that such evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination. However, when there is no reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities, the application must be dismissed following the summary hearing.
Application to the Facts
5The applicant raised a number of matters: that the police failed to properly respond when she complained about someone breaking into her house; that she was being followed and harassed by unidentified individuals; and, that her hours of work were reduced resulting in her losing her house.
6For the purposes of this summary hearing, the applicant was required to point to evidence that she has or is reasonably available to her that would indicate that at least one of the grounds she has pleaded was a factor in the mistreatment she experienced at the hands of any of the respondents. I explained to the applicant that I was not questioning the veracity of her version of events; rather I was looking to determine what evidence, if any, was available to her that could connect her mistreatment to any of the grounds she raised in her Application. The Tribunal's jurisprudence is clear that bare assertions or speculation are insufficient to avoid a finding that an Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
7The applicant's oral submissions dealt primarily with the mistreatment she allegedly experienced. She failed to point to any evidence that might show a link between her mistreatment and any of the grounds upon which she made her claim. When pressed she indicated that she did not know why "any of these things" happened to her. She asserted that everyone must be racist. In her Application where she was asked to explain why she believes she was discriminated against she wrote: "I don't know why but everybody said because I am black women".
8I find that the applicant has failed to point to any evidence that would be available to her that would show a link between the events she describes and any of the prohibited grounds that she has pleaded. Her assertion that everyone is racist and her reference to "everyone said because I am black woman" is mere speculation and is not evidence that could link her mistreatment to any of the grounds she has raised in her Application.
9In my view, there is not a reasonable prospect that the applicant's evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination.
10Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of February, 2013.
"Signed by"
Keith Brennenstuhl Vice-chair