White v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2013 HRTO 328

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew White

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Winston X and St. Joseph’s Health Centre

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: February 26, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 328

Indexed as: White v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation

APPEARANCES

Andrew White, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Community Housing Corporation and Winston X, Respondents

Saira Cassim, Counsel

St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Respondent

Michelle Warner, Counsel

Introduction

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 and reprisal with respect to housing because of place of origin and ethnic origin.

2By Case Assessment Direction dated August 2, 2012, the Tribunal scheduled this matter for a Summary Hearing. The hearing took place by conference call on November 14, 2012.

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. The purpose of a summary hearing is to consider, early in the proceeding, whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part because there is no reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.

4The Tribunal cannot address general allegations of unfairness, unrelated to the Code, in areas such as employment, services or accommodation and it is important that this be determined at the earliest opportunity, where appropriate. Discrimination generally involves an allegation of unfair treatment on the basis of one or more of the grounds under the Code, such as race, gender or disability. Unfair treatment is not discriminatory in the legal sense unless there is proof that one or more of these personal characteristics was a factor in the treatment the applicant experienced.

5The test that is applied at a summary hearing is whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part because it has no reasonable prospect of success. At 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 are not defined as discrimination in the legal sense, can leave a person with significant financial and emotional damage.

6The test of no reasonable prospect of success is determined by assuming the applicant’s version of events is true unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary. In some cases, for example, the applicant will not dispute the respondent’s version of one or more of the facts.

7Accepting the facts alleged by the applicant does not include accepting the applicant’s assumptions about why they were treated unfairly. The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine if reasonable inferences can be drawn from any facts or evidence the applicant is able to point to which tend to support the applicant’s belief that they have experienced discrimination.

8The question that the Tribunal must decide at a summary hearing is whether there is likely to be sufficient direct or indirect evidence available to connect the unfair treatment experienced by the applicant with the applicant’s personal characteristics.

9Support for that connection may come 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. These are just some examples of the circumstances, which are often contained in the narrative to the application, that play a role in assisting the Tribunal in determining whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success. However, if the applicant is unable to point to circumstances beyond their own assumptions or belief, the application may be found to have no reasonable prospect of success.

10The parties are given an opportunity to make submissions, usually on a telephone conference call, during a summary hearing. These submissions are often helpful in clarifying the nature of the allegations.

11The 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.

12The Tribunal is also mindful of the fact that in some cases the 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.

13Having set out the basic framework for determining whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part for no reasonable prospect of success, I now turn to the facts of this particular case.

ANALYSIS

14The applicant was given an opportunity to make submissions to assist the Tribunal in determining whether the Application should proceed. Specifically the applicant was asked to assist the Tribunal in understanding the connection between the respondent’s actions and the prohibited grounds of place of origin and ethnic origin. The respondents also made submissions in support of dismissing the Application.

15The applicant self-identifies as Jamaican. He is a tenant in Toronto Community Housing. The narrative of his application is difficult to understand. He makes reference to a worker from Toronto Community Housing, the smell of bug spray and an interaction with the police which resulted in him being taken to hospital. He alleges that while he was at St. Joseph’s Health Centre the hospital suspended his driver’s licence. He alleges that the call to the police came from his doctor’s office and that he is unable to lock his door or have a pet because he is not Canadian.

16The applicant’s oral submissions made his allegations somewhat more clear. The applicant has apparently made complaints of foul smells coming from his unit, which have been investigated by the respondent. The applicant alleges that one of the respondent’s workers entered his unit without proper notice and was rude to him. He is upset that the police were called to his unit with the result that he was taken to hospital and had his driver’s licence suspended.

17The representative for St. Joseph’s Health Centre indicated that the hospital has no knowledge of any report made about the applicant to the Ministry of Transportation.

18Even if I accepted the applicant’s allegations as true, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can succeed under the Code. There is no evidence that the actions of the respondents are in any way connected to the applicant’s place of origin or ethnic origin as he has alleged in his Application.

19Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.