R.H. v. City of Brantford, 2013 HRTO 830

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

R.H.

Applicant

-and-

City of Brantford, Brantford Police Service, and Children’s Aid Society of Brant

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: May 17, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 830

Indexed as: RH v Brantford (City)

APPEARANCES

R.H., Applicant

Self-represented

City of Brantford, Respondent

Kim Farrington, Counsel

Brantford Police Service, Respondent

Sean McAleese, Counsel

Children’s Aid Society of Brant, Respondent

Mercy Mathew, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on May 22, 2012 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, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and association with a person with a disability.

2In her Application, the applicant describes many hardships that she faced in 2011, particularly with respect to obtaining services from the respondents, and how the Children’s Aid Society of Brant removed her daughter from her custody in 2012, but it appeared to describe allegations of unfairness generally, rather than clear violations of the Code. The Tribunal noted that the applicant may be unable to prove a link between the grounds she alleges and the incidents she describes, and issued a Case Assessment Direction on June 14, 2012, directing that a summary hearing be held by teleconference to determine whether there was no reasonable prospect of success.

3The parties all attended the summary hearing on October 23, 2012.

ANALYSIS

4Rule 19A.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides:

The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of 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 of the Application will succeed.

5Furthermore, in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, the Tribunal made the following comments at paras. 8-10:

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.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE CITY OF BRANTFORD

6At the summary hearing, the applicant clarified her allegations against the City of Brantford (“the City”). She described the three reasons for which she was alleging discrimination against the City.

7First, she explained that when she applied for welfare, Ontario Works (“OW”) benefits, her caseworker told her that she was required to provide a court document from Quebec, and that she would need to ensure it was translated from its original French version to English. The applicant alleges that the requirement, while later waived by a replacement caseworker, caused a delay in her receipt of benefits, and, consequently, less income. She explained that she should have received benefits in August of 2011, but, because the original caseworker would not accept a French version of the Quebec court document, she did not begin receiving benefits until September 2011. The applicant noted that her place of origin is Haiti, where French is spoken. She therefore alleges that the City discriminated against her because of race and place of origin. With respect to this allegation, I cannot find that there would be no reasonable prospect of success for the Application. If the facts as alleged by the applicant are true, then it may be that the seemingly neutral requirement that the applicant translate documents into English was contrary to s.11 of the Code because the requirement had an adverse impact on the applicant who states that she is from Haiti and is therefore French. The City is required to provide a full Response (Form 2) with respect to this allegation.

8At the summary hearing, the applicant further clarified her second allegation against the City. She explained that she was assigned a new OW caseworker who works with people with mental health problems, and the caseworker made her go to meetings with OW benefits recipients who have drug and mental health problems, even though the applicant protested that she did not have a mental health problem at that time. She explained that unless she was perceived as having a mental health problem, she would not have to attend. With respect to this allegation, I cannot find that there would be no reasonable prospect of success for the Application. If the facts as alleged by the applicant are true, and the City treated the applicant differently because of a perception that she was disabled, then there is a reasonable prospect of success for this allegation. The City is required to provide a full Response (Form 2) with respect to this allegation.

9At the summary hearing, the applicant further explained her third allegation against the City. By December 2011, she was working, and no longer collected OW benefits, but had to reapply in May 2012. She was told by her caseworker that she would need to go to meetings to prepare to return to work. The applicant believes that such a requirement was because of her race and place of origin, but she was unable to explain what evidence she has to support her belief. Mere supposition or belief is not sufficient for the applicant to meet the burden of proof required of her. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, at para. 17. Without any evidence that the requirement to attend these meetings to prepare to return to work was because of her race and place of origin, I find that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the City discriminated against her because of those grounds with respect to those meetings. I therefore dismiss this third allegation, and the City need not address it in its Response.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE BRANTFORD POLICE SERVICE

10The applicant clarified her allegations against the Brantford Police Service (the “Service”) at the summary hearing. She stated that she is alleging discrimination against it because police officers, from whom she requested help in dealing with a threat, instead took her to a hospital where they asked her about her place of origin and religion. She told them that she is from Haiti and that she doesn’t have a religion. The officer told her that if she is from Haiti, then her religion must be voodoo and the officers then laughed at her, and made fun of her. She also stated that, upon returning from the hospital, her neighbours told her that the police officers had told them that the applicant was crazy.

11With respect to the allegations against the Service, as clarified by the applicant at the summary hearing, I cannot find that there would be no reasonable prospect of success for the Application. The allegations that the officers asked the applicant about her place of origin and then decided that she must practice voodoo because she is from Haiti, causing them to laugh at her and make fun of her, if true, might constitute harassment or a poisoned environment in violation of the Code. The allegation that the officers returned to the applicant’s neighbourhood to tell her neighbours that the applicant was crazy may also constitute discrimination under the Code. The Service is required to provide a full Response (Form 2) with respect to these allegations.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF BRANT

12The allegations in the Application against the Children’s Aid Society of Brant (the “CAS”) appear to revolve around the CAS having placed the applicant’s daughter in foster care. At the summary hearing, the applicant explained that she has included the CAS as a respondent because it revealed to the foster parents that the applicant was in the hospital. The foster parents then visited the applicant at the hospital, and called the applicant crazy. The applicant explained that she is upset that the CAS did not respect her privacy by providing the foster parents with information so that they could visit her, and she believes that by sharing that information without her permission is a violation of the Code.

13In my view, this allegation has no reasonable prospect of success. The foster parents, not staff of the CAS, allegedly called the applicant crazy, and the applicant has not provided any reasons for me to find that there is any prospect of success for any allegation of discrimination because of disability or perceived disability against the CAS for alleged comments by the foster parents. With respect to the allegation of a violation of the applicant’s privacy, I recognize that a violation of an individual’s privacy can be discriminatory in certain circumstances, but the applicant did not explain how the CAS’s provision of information to the foster parents amounted to a Code violation. I therefore find that there is no reasonable prospect of success for the allegations against the CAS.

14The allegations against the CAS are dismissed, and the style of cause in all future directions and decisions related to this file number shall accordingly not indicate the CAS as a respondent.

NEXT STEP

15The Application against CAS is dismissed, but the other respondents are required to file their full Responses (Form 2) within 35 days of this Interim Decision. The remaining respondents may restrict themselves to the allegations that the applicant, at the summary hearing, clarified were the issues in her Application as described above.