HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Becky Congdon Applicant
-and-
London Police Service Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: May 28, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 936 Indexed as: Congdon v. London Police Services
APPEARANCES
Becky Congdon, Applicant Self-represented
London Police Service, Respondent Frank Angeletti, Counsel
1This is an Application filed on June 27, 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 disability.
2The respondent filed a Response denying the allegations of discrimination and requested a summary hearing.
3On October 31, 2010, the Tribunal allowed the respondent’s request and directed that a preliminary hearing be held to determine whether some of the allegations in the application were untimely and whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.
4On March 20, 2013 the preliminary hearing was held via telephone conference during which both parties made submissions.
5The applicant clarified during the telephone call that she only alleges discrimination on the basis of disability and not sex. The applicant also clarified that she does not seek to rely on any events that predate one year to establish a breach of the Code. The applicant explained that she only included these events by way of background information.
BACKGROUND
6The applicant explains that she suffers from mental health disabilities which sometimes results in her having delusions and hallucinations. Throughout the years the applicant has presented herself to the Police on a few occasions and asked them to call an ambulance for her to take her to the hospital. She also explained that the Police were sometimes called to deal with some family related issues, including that her aunt was concerned about her mental health after she found the applicant’s will in November 2009.
7There are two timely allegations in the Application. The applicant acknowledged during the hearing that on December 9, 2011, the applicant asked a fellow neighbour “How does it feel it feel to be Indian”. In her Application the applicant says that she asked the neighbour to “party”. The applicant alleges that the neighbour responded “how would it feel to be dead”. The applicant called the Police who attended her residence and told her to avoid the neighbour and to not make those types of comments in the future.
8On February 23, 2012, the applicant contacted the respondent to advise that she had been sexually assaulted. During the hearing the applicant explained that in April 2009, she met with her ex-boyfriend for drinks at a local bar. The applicant stated that she then drove with her ex-boyfriend to a local convenience store which she entered and purchased condoms. The couple then drove to another location where she says that they had consensual sex.
9During the hearing the applicant talked about the ex-boyfriend and the comments that he made during their conversation that day and how he was judging her whole life which she found to be inappropriate. When I asked why she believed that she had been sexually assaulted she said that she believed that she may have been drugged by her ex-boyfriend but could not explain why she believed that had occurred.
10The applicant met numerous times with the Police, including a meeting that lasted close to an hour. During these meetings she discussed with them the situation with her ex-boyfriend and also that her ex-roommate had sent her emails and was playing psychiatrist with her.
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.
12The applicant believes that the respondent is not laying charges against her ex-boyfriend and neighbour because she has a mental health disability. The respondent in turn asserts that it investigated the applicant’s allegations and that there is no evidence to corroborate the applicant’s allegations of sexual assault and that it responded appropriately to the dispute with the neighbour. It is not the role of this Tribunal to review the correctness of the respondent’s decision not to lay charges against either of these individuals. The role of the Tribunal is to assess whether the respondent failed to provide the applicant with police services in a manner contrary to the Code.
13I have considered the matter, and based on the materials that I have reviewed, and especially the applicant’s oral submissions I find that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success. There is nothing before me to suggest or from which I could potentially draw an inference that the applicant received adverse treatment with respect to policing services because of her disability. Although she disagrees with the policing outcome, she has not pointed to anything that would suggest her disability was a discriminatory factor in the policing outcome. Indeed, as noted, the applicant’s recollection and description of the events surrounding her encounter with her ex-boyfriend are vague and speculative and the applicant repeatedly asserted during the hearing that she had consensual sex. Further, given the applicant’s history in approaching the respondent to seek assistance for her mental health issues it was appropriate for the Police to inquire into the applicant’s ability to recollect events given the nature of her mental health disabilities. Indeed, it would have been impossible for the respondent to ignore this issue.
14With respect to the issue with her neighbour I find that the applicant has no prospect of establishing that the respondent infringed her rights under the Code. They attended the call and advised the applicant not to provoke her neighbour in the future. None of these actions are discriminatory or otherwise engage the Code.
15The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of May, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair