Perkins-Aboagye v. Greenboro Community Centre Association, 2014 HRTO 1027

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Coralie Perkins-Aboagye Applicant

-and-

Greenboro Community Centre Association, Esther Becker, Kate McEniry and Louise McGoey Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Coralie Perkins-Aboagye Applicant

-and-

Kimberly Matte, Esther Becker and Kate McEniry Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: July 14, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1027 Indexed as: Perkins-Aboagye v. Greenboro Community Centre Association

APPEARANCES

Coralie Perkins-Aboagye, Applicant Self-represented

Greenboro Community Centre Association, Esther Becker, Kate McEniry, Louise McGoey and Kimberly Matte, Respondents David Law, Counsel and Kaitlin Short, Student-at-law

Introduction

1These are two Applications dated January 27, 2014 and February 10, 2014 alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry, sexual orientation and association with a person identified by a protected ground contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2These applications both arise out of events that occurred during the applicant’s use of recreational services offered by the respondent community centre (the “Centre”) that ultimately led to the revocation of the applicant’s membership.

3By Case Assessment Direction dated March 21, 2014 (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether these Applications should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that they will succeed. The respondents were not required to file a formal Response, but were directed to file a short written summary of the reasons why the applicant’s membership was revoked.

4The summary hearing was held by teleconference on May 22, 2014, during the course of which I heard oral submissions from the parties.

5In advance of and following the summary hearing, the applicant filed certain requests to amend her Application and requests for an interim remedy. It is not necessary for me to address these requests, although in considering whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success, I have considered the allegations raised in the applicant’s requests to amend.

SUMMARY HEARING TEST

6Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure read as follows:

19A.1 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.

19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure or witness statements.

7Details 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.

8The CAD advised the parties that the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment on the grounds set out in the Code. To succeed in an Application, an applicant must be able to prove discrimination on the basis of a Code ground on a balance of probabilities. To show discrimination, an applicant must prove a link between a respondent’s alleged actions and a Code ground. The CAD stated that, having reviewed the Applications, it appears that the applicant may be unable to prove a link to the ground or grounds alleged.

ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY THE APPLICANT

9At the outset of the summary hearing, I advised the applicant that I wanted her to address specifically what it is with respect to each respondent that she is alleging violated her rights under the Code. I noted that the voluminous materials filed by the applicant include a tremendous amount of information, and I asked the applicant to distill this information down for each named respondent and identify each thing that each respondent did that she alleges is a violation of her rights under the Code, and I asked her to express each allegation in a sentence or two so that I could clearly understand what it is that she is alleging. And then for each allegation, I asked the applicant to explain to me what connection there is to a right protected under the Code and what evidence she would bring forward at a hearing to establish a link between the allegation raised and a right protected under the Code.

10During her initial submissions, the applicant raised five specific alleged violations of her rights under the Code, which I will address in turn. After the respondents in their submissions noted that none of these allegations related to at least two of the named respondents, the applicant then articulated several further alleged violations of the Code as against these individuals, which I will also address. Following the teleconference hearing, the applicant raised creed as an additional alleged ground of discrimination, and I will address those allegations as well.

The Exercise Ball Incident

11On Friday, September 20, 2013, the applicant attended a class being run by the personal respondent Ms. McGoey. The applicant states that the participants in the class engaged in an exercise where they walked in different directions, and then were told at a certain point to stop and sit on an exercise ball. The applicant states that, as she sat on the exercise ball, the ball was very soft and she fell and hit the bone just below her elbow on an object on the floor that had been used in a drumming routine that preceded the exercise the class was doing. The applicant states that she sustained a big bump on her arm and experienced pain from this incident.

12On Monday, September 23, 2013, the applicant delivered a letter addressed to the Director of the Centre regarding this incident, in which she expressed concern that Ms. McGoey had never asked her if she was okay.

13In response, on September 25, 2013, Ms. McGoey called the applicant and left her a voicemail message, of which the applicant has provided a transcription. The transcription of the voicemail message indicates that Ms. McGoey said that she had read the applicant’s letter and was very, very sorry that the applicant felt that Ms. McGoey was ignoring her. Ms. McGoey said that she did not actually see the applicant fall in class and was not aware that the applicant had fallen. Ms. McGoey again apologized if the applicant felt she had been ignored or uncared for.

14In this context, Ms. McGoey is transcribed as saying the following:

Finally, I am sorry you didn’t understand the choreography, what we were to do actually was walk forward, to the next ball each time. I thought I had made it clear, I thought we kind of practised it together a number of times and things like that.

15The applicant alleges that Ms. McGoey’s statement that she “didn’t understand the choreography” is a form of racial stereotyping, by putting the blame on the applicant for the incident and suggesting that the applicant, who self-identifies as a Brown Canadian citizen born and raised in the Caribbean, was not intelligent enough to understand the choreography.

16In my view, such an interpretation of Ms. McGoey’s words is simply not sustainable. The applicant’s September 23, 2013 letter, to which Ms. McGoey’s voicemail message was in response, made reference to the exercise as “marching backward and forward several times, never landing on the same spot, so when we were ready to do exercises which required us to use the ball, I was at a different spot”. Ms. McGoey was simply clarifying that the actual exercise was to walk forward to the next ball each time. In my view, this statement cannot reasonably be interpreted as Ms. McGoey blaming the applicant for the incident, which Ms. McGoey expressly states she did not observe at the time. Nor am I able to discern any objective indicia of racial stereotyping or discrimination arising out of Ms. McGoey’s statements, particularly in the overall context of her entire voicemail message and the applicant’s September 23, 2013 letter. In my view, the overall tenor of Ms. McGoey’s message is that she was apologizing for the applicant feeling ignored or uncared for, clarifying that she was not aware of the incident, and responding to other matters raised in the applicant’s letter. There is no reasonable basis arising out of this incident or Ms. McGoey’s words to support the applicant’s allegation of racial discrimination.

17Accordingly, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be successful in establishing that this incident gives rise to any violation of the Code.

Allegation That Not Wanted In Program

18The applicant’s next allegation arises out of her belief that the respondents did not want her to return to the program, which she alleges to constitute racial discrimination. Her allegation that she was not wanted in the program is rooted in a statement made at the end of Ms. McGoey’s voicemail message on September 25, 2013, where Ms. McGoey states:

If you are coming back to the program I would very much like to talk to you one on one please and I do apologize if you feel offended in any way.

19The applicant interprets Ms. McGoey’s use of the word “if” as an indication that she was not wanted in the program. In my view, such an interpretation is simply not tenable. On its face, Ms. McGoey’s language indicates a desire to speak with the applicant and yet a further apology. Not only is there nothing to indicate that the applicant was not wanted in the program, but Ms. McGoey expressly states that she wants to engage with the applicant upon her return. That is the antithesis of not being wanted. Ms. McGoey’s statement also needs to be considered in the surrounding context. The applicant experienced an unfortunate incident on the preceding Friday. She delivered a letter raising issues about Ms. McGoey and the incident on the following Monday, though she did not attend class. She again did not attend class on the Tuesday. So, by the time of Ms. McGoey’s call, the applicant had been absent from Ms. McGoey’s class for two days following the incident about which she had complained in writing. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for Ms. McGoey not to presume that the applicant was returning to her class, but nonetheless to extend the invitation to talk one on one if the applicant did. In my view, there is nothing here to indicate that the applicant was not wanted in the program, and certainly nothing to suggest racial discrimination.

20The applicant also states that when she next appeared at the Centre, she was offered a complete refund by a staff member. Once again, she contends that this indicates that the Centre would have preferred if she did not return. I do not see it that way. By the time the offer of a refund was made, the applicant had sent the September 23, 2013 letter to the centre, Ms. McGoey had called to apologize the next day, and this was followed by a further letter from the applicant dated September 25, 2013 in which she expressed her dissatisfaction with Ms. McGoey’s call, raised an issue about the exercise ball not having been properly inflated, declined to meet with Ms. McGoey without a witness present, and expressed that she did not feel comfortable with Ms. McGoey. The overall tenor of this letter is that the applicant was not happy with her experience in the program or with Ms. McGoey. In this context, the offer of a refund to the applicant reasonably can be viewed as giving her the option to recoup her fees if she felt so dissatisfied with the Centre that she did not want to return. In my view, this offer cannot reasonably be viewed as an indication that the Centre did not want the applicant to return – particularly since she did return and continued to utilize the Centre for the next several months – and certainly does not support any allegation of racial discrimination.

21Accordingly, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be successful in establishing that these incidents give rise to any violation of the Code.

Allegation re: meeting with Ms. Becker

22On October 4, 2013, the applicant started attending a Friday class being given by Person A. The applicant states that she felt an “instant connection” with Person A, and started attending Person A’s Monday class as well. The applicant purchased a laminated card of the well-known poem “Footprints in the Sand”, and gave this card to Person A. Then, on October 25, 2013, the applicant sent an e-mail to Person A attaching a four page, single-spaced document in which the applicant shared personal and intimate details of her life, and expressed her desire for Person A to be the applicant’s “BFF” (best friend forever). This was followed by a further e-mail sent to Person A at 2:27 a.m. on Sunday, October 27, 2013, to which she attached a further four page, single-spaced document in which she shared further intimate and personal details from her life.

23Person A responded by e-mail on Monday, October 28, 2013. Having read Person A’s response, it is my view that it can only reasonably be interpreted as a polite and perhaps over-nice message for the applicant to back off and that her attentions are not welcome. The e-mail message states:

So sorry not to have had the opportunity to talk face to face today Coralie.

I am honoured and touched that you have chosen me to unburden yourself and share your experiences with.

I do have to speak my truth. I am uncomfortable with the premise that you may have found your BFF in me and I am not sure what you hope to achieve by sharing your most intimate details of your life to a person to whom you really do not know.

I have only taught a handful of classes in which you were a participant, and we have not really had a conversation other than to share pleasantries.

I believe in the power of attraction and that the universe will put into my life people, things and situations which will enhance and enrich my earth bound experience. Having said that though, I find your attentions overwhelming.

Perhaps the best way to go about getting to know each other, is just that – let’s get to know each other through conversations when time will allow.

I hope I have not offended you in any way or discouraged you from engaging in conversation with me, as it is not my intent. I simply needed to speak my truth and be honest with you. Email is so impersonal and I do not think it is the right forum for getting to know someone. Call me old fashioned.

I hope to see you Friday. As of right this minute, I do not have to rush off to train a client on Friday so perhaps we can sit down for a few minutes after class.

Thank you very much for the laminated card. I will keep it safe and cherished.

24The applicant was undeterred. She sent an e-mail back to Person A on the same day, including statements such as “there is just something about you”, “it is something I have never, ever seen in anyone before”, “it appeared as if my heart was being used for me”, “you have the personality that I find intriguing”, and “it is difficult for me to put into words exactly what that is and not be even more overwhelming”. At the end of the e-mail, the applicant ponders whether she should sign off “love”, which is not a way that she normally signs off in letters, but proceeds to do so in this letter because she “feel[s] like so doing, hope you do not mind”. In her Application, the applicant states, “I was experiencing a love for [Person A] that I had never ever experienced before”.

25The applicant states that after her next class with Person A following this e-mail exchange, Person A had to leave to go see a client and arranged to meet with the applicant after the ensuing class. The applicant states that on the day they were to meet, Person A cancelled the meeting and asked the applicant not to e-mail her again. Once again, rather than getting the message, the applicant speculates that someone had “gotten” to Person A to cause her to do this.

26The applicant continued to attend Person A’s classes, although she states that she never contacted Person A again and left as soon as the class was finished. However, in the Application, the applicant does make reference to an incident involving Person A that appears to have occurred on November 21, 2013. The applicant had written a book and says that she received one copy from her publisher for her approval on November 20, 2013. She states that she “really wanted” to show Person A her book, so she brought it to the Centre and put it in her locker. After class was finished, the applicant says that she went to her locker to retrieve the book and returned to the room where the class had been held. At that time, the personal respondent Ms. Becker, the President of the organizational respondent, was in the room with Person A. In the Application, the applicant states that when she tried to show her book to Person A, Person A said that she did not want to see the book and that she had told the applicant before that she did not want any communication with the applicant.

27Once again, the applicant refused to take the message, speculating that Person A had been forced to say this and only did so for the benefit of Ms. Becker.

28The following Monday, November 25, 2013, the applicant was contacted by Ms. McEniry to set up a meeting on Thursday, November 28, 2013. The applicant did not return the call or any of the subsequent attempts by the Centre to arrange this meeting. The applicant states that, on November 28, 2013, she was approached by Ms. Becker in the hallway outside her class. She says that Ms. Becker told her that Person A had complained that the applicant was offending her and giving her gifts which Person A did not appreciate. The applicant states that Ms. Becker warned her about being in Person A’s class, said that she did not want the applicant to be in Person A’s class, and said that she wanted the applicant to be in Ms. McGoey’s class if she re-registered.

29The applicant immediately concluded that Ms. Becker was “lying” and “could not be trusted”, because Person A in her e-mail of October 28, 2013 had said that she would keep the laminated card “safe and cherished”. This, of course, ignores the overall message being conveyed by Person A in this e-mail, ignores Person A’s subsequent cancellation of the meeting with the applicant and statement that she did not want to receive any further e-mails from the applicant, and Person A’s later statements that she did not want to see the applicant’s book and did not want to have any communication with the applicant.

30The applicant alleges that Ms. Becker’s statements to her constitute discrimination because of sexual orientation. When asked to describe her sexual orientation in the Application, the applicant replied that she had previously thought that she was heterosexual, but based on the feelings she has for Person A, is now inclined to think that she is lesbian. The applicant’s theory is that Ms. Becker was acting to try to keep her apart from Person A because of some aversion to same sex relationships.

31This is pure speculation on the applicant’s part, and is entirely inconsistent with the events as set out in the applicant’s own materials, save for the applicant’s further speculation that Ms. Becker was the puppet-master behind Person A’s repeated attempts to convey the message that she is not interested in the applicant and wants no communication with her.

32This Tribunal repeatedly has held that a bare allegation that a person has experienced discrimination because of a protected ground which is based on the person’s own belief or assumption that she or he experienced such discrimination is not enough to satisfy the requirement at a summary hearing for an applicant to establish that he or she has a reasonable prospect of success at a hearing: see Visic v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2012 HRTO 1642; Caster v. Hearthstone Communities Services Ltd., 2013 HRTO 111; Corpus v. Toronto Police Service, 2013 HRTO 1141.

33In my view, the applicant’s allegation of discrimination because of sexual orientation arising out of Ms. Becker’s statements to her on November 28, 2013 not only constitutes a bare allegation of this nature, but further is fueled by speculation that is entirely inconsistent with any reasonable interpretation of events.

34As a result, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be successful in establishing that this incident gives rise to any violation of the Code.

Allegation re: revocation of Membership

35The applicant continued to attend classes where Person A was the instructor following her meeting with Ms. Becker on November 28, 2013.

36On January 2, 2014, the applicant sent a five page fax to Ms. Becker in which she speaks about her “true feelings” towards Person A and states that she “loves” Person A. In this fax, the applicant expresses her view that Ms. Becker and the Centre are interfering in her “relationship” with Person A and that this is illegal. The applicant further requests that Ms. Becker and others give Person A “the okay” to speak with the applicant, either at or outside the Centre. She makes it clear that she will continue to attend Person A’s classes and continues to want to be able to communicate with Person A. Near the end of her fax, the applicant states:

. . . from the moment I spoke with [Person A], there was a connection the extent of which I had never felt with anyone else before. This connection has evolved over time to what I came to feel for [Person A], and again what I feel for [Person A] I have never felt with anyone before; I could only assume that it may be a ‘once in a lifetime’ experience.

37The following day, on January 3, 2014, the applicant sent a fax to the Centre addressed to “whomever it may concern” in which she accused Ms. Becker of violating her Constitutional rights by preventing her from speaking freely with Person A.

38This correspondence was the ultimate incident leading to the Centre’s decision to revoke the applicant’s membership, which it did on January 4, 2014. The letter revoking the applicant’s membership is dated January 4, 2014 and was sent to the applicant by e-mail and signed by Ms. Becker. The reasons expressed in the Centre’s letter for revoking the applicant’s membership are as follows:

Your conduct toward one of our instructors . . . has been tantamount to stalking. I refer to your e-mails to [Person A], your conduct in her classes, your waiting for her in the Centre’s parking lot before classes, your facsimile to me of January 2, 2014, in which you express your feelings for [Person A] and accuse me of making [Person A] fearful of speaking with you, and your facsimile of January 3, 2014 to WHOMEVER IT MAY CONCERN at the Greenboro Community Centre in which you accuse me and others of violating your constitutional rights by preventing you from speaking freely with [Person A].

The Greenboro Community Centre Association has an obligation to protect its employees and instructors from harassment. Your conduct has constituted harassment and, therefore, we are revoking your membership.

[Person A] will file a report with the Ottawa City Police regarding your conduct towards her. Any further harassment of [Person A] may well result in an application for a restraining order.

We very much regret having to take this action, but our obligations to protect our employees and instructors from harassment leave us no choice.

39The applicant alleges that the revocation of her membership with the Centre constitutes discrimination because of sexual orientation. In order to have a reasonable prospect of being successful at a hearing with such an allegation, the applicant would need to be able to point to evidence reasonably available to her to indicate that the respondents perceived her to be lesbian as a result of her expressed feelings towards Person A and that her sexual orientation was a factor in the decision to revoke her membership. Beyond the applicant’s own speculation, the applicant has pointed to no actual evidence to indicate that this was the case.

40Rather, the undisputed record before me indicates that, despite being told by Person A that she did not want to have any communication with the applicant, the applicant persisted in pursuing the possibility of communication with Person A and in expressing feelings towards Person A that were clearly not reciprocated and were unwelcome. The issue was the applicant’s continued pursuit of unwelcome behaviour towards Person A, not the applicant’s sexual orientation. For example, if a man had persisted in such behaviour towards Person A, there is no basis in the material before me to indicate that the respondents’ actions would have been any different.

41Accordingly, I find that there is no reasonable prospect of success in relation to the applicant’s allegation that the revocation of her membership with the respondent Centre violated the Code.

42At the summary hearing, the applicant raised the allegation that her assertion in her facsimile communications of early January 2014 that her legal and constitutional rights were being infringed by the respondents was a factor in the decision to revoke her membership. I will treat this as an allegation of reprisal for seeking to invoke Code rights, contrary to s. 8 of the Code. While it is true that the applicant did assert her legal rights in her fax communications and while this is referenced in Ms. Becker’s letter of January 4, 2014, on the face of the revocation letter the issue is clearly not the applicant’s assertion of her legal rights, but the fact that she continued to pursue potential communication with Person A despite having been informed by Person A that such communication was unwelcome. Even if the Application were amended to allege reprisal, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that such an allegation would be successful.

Allegation re: contacting the Police

43The applicant states that she did not check her e-mail on January 4, 2014 and so was not aware that her membership had been revoked. As a result, she went to the Centre on Sunday, January 5, 2014. The applicant states that she was informed by Ms. McEniry that her membership had been revoked and was asked to leave. The applicant states that, as she was leaving, she asked Ms. McEniry about payment of her refund, and was told that a cheque would be sent to her. The applicant states that she informed Ms. McEniry that “they are a lawsuit waiting to happen”, at which point Ms. McEniry called the police and asked them to come to the Centre. The applicant states that Ms. McEniry told the police that she was “resisting leaving”, even though the applicant was walking out the door at the time.

44The applicant states that she was visited at her home by two police officers on January 7, 2014, and that she was told by one of these officers that it was claimed that she had issued “terrorist threats” as she was leaving the Centre. She further states that she was visited the next day by another police officer, who said that it was reported to the police that the applicant had “snuck” into the Centre on January 5, although the applicant cannot recall whether the officer said that it was through a front door or a back door. The applicant states that on January 5, she entered the Centre through the front door and scanned her membership card as usual.

45The applicant alleges that these actions constitute racial discrimination against her contrary to the Code, on the basis that the characterization of her actions was based on racial stereotyping. With regard to the comment alleged to have been made by Ms. McEniry to the police that the applicant was “resisting leaving”, I do not see any reasonable prospect of success in connecting such a comment in the context in which it was made to racial discrimination or racial stereotyping. The applicant was told that her membership had been revoked and was asked to leave. On her own materials, the applicant proceeded to ask questions about a refund and made a comment about potential legal action. Even assuming Ms. McEniry made the comment as alleged, the proximate basis for any such comment was the applicant’s actions after being asked to leave, and not racial discrimination or stereotyping.

46With regard to the alleged comment by the police officer that it was reported that the applicant had “snuck” into the Centre on January 5, once again I do not see any reasonable prospect of success in connecting this alleged comment to racial discrimination or stereotyping. The applicant’s own materials indicate that on January 5, she entered the Centre by swiping her membership card. From the respondent’s perspective, the applicant’s membership had been revoked the previous day, yet here was the applicant inside the Centre’s premises. If any of the respondents did in fact say to the police that the applicant “snuck” into the Centre as alleged, the proximate basis for any such statement would be the fact that the applicant was found inside the Centre’s premises despite having had her membership revoked, and not racial discrimination or stereotyping.

47Finally, with regard to the allegation that it had been claimed to the police that the applicant had issued “terrorist threats” as she was leaving the Centre, it is my view that this allegation is too far at a remove from the respondents to have any reasonable prospect of success. The police are not named as a respondent to this proceeding, and the named respondents are not responsible for statements alleged to have been made by an unidentified police officer. In order for this allegation to be attributed to any of the named respondents, there would need to be evidence that the unidentified police officer made the alleged comment, and that the unidentified police officer in fact heard these words being uttered by one of the named respondents, as opposed to providing his own characterization of, for example, the threat of a potential lawsuit that was admittedly made by the applicant. I also note that it was the applicant herself, in an e-mail dated January 5, 2014, who raised the allegation that the respondents had been using “terrorist activities” and “terrorist tactics” to control Person A. In these circumstances, I find that there is no reasonable prospect of success in relation to this allegation.

Allegations re Ms. McEniry and Ms. Matte

48As stated previously, in her initial submissions the applicant raised five specific allegations of a violation of her rights under the Code. In his submissions in response, respondents counsel noted that the applicant had not raised any specific allegations against the personal respondents Ms. McEniry and Ms. Matte. In her reply submissions, the applicant pointed to Ms. McEniry’s involvement in calling the police after she had appeared at the Centre on January 5, 2014, which I already have addressed above.

49In addition, the applicant raised an allegation regarding phone calls Ms. McEniry had made to her during the period from November 25 to 27, 2013, which she alleges form part of her allegation of discrimination against her because of sexual orientation. On her own materials, the applicant was contacted by Ms. McEniry during this period of time in an attempt to schedule a meeting. The applicant did not respond to these calls. This led to the discussion between the applicant and Ms. Becker on November 28, 2013. In my view, there is no basis to support any allegation of a violation of the Code against Ms. McEniry arising out of these phone calls.

50With regard to Ms. Matte, the applicant raises an allegation regarding Ms. Matte arising out of an interaction on October 4, 2013, which is the first day that the applicant attended Person A’s class. The applicant’s material states that she did not know where Person A’s class was, and so she went into Ms. Matte’s class and Ms. Matte accompanied the applicant to the gym where Person A’s class was being held. The applicant states that about 10 to 15 minutes into Person A’s class, Ms. Matte peered into the gym and was looking directly at the applicant “with a grave look of concern on her face”. The applicant speculates that Ms. Matte had information that caused her to be concerned about the applicant taking Person A’s class. This is alleged in the February 10, 2014 Application to constitute discrimination because of the applicant’s association with Person A, who is alleged to be a person identified by a protected ground under the Code. There is simply no basis to support any such allegation, other than the applicant’s speculation.

51The applicant also alleged in her oral submissions that Ms. Matte engaged in ongoing harassment against her, but was unable to provide any specifics. A vague allegation of this nature does not provide any basis to find a reasonable prospect of success.

52Accordingly, I find that the further allegations as against Ms. McEniry and Ms. Matte have no reasonable prospect of success.

Allegation re: discrimination because of Creed

53As stated above, following the summary hearing in this matter on May 22, 2014, the applicant filed two Requests for Order seeking to amend her Applications to include the protected ground of creed.

54With regard to the request to amend the February 10, 2014 Application, the applicant specifically requests that Ms. Matte be cited under this ground, with the allegation being that Ms. Matte “was continually harassing [the applicant] based on her religious beliefs about sexual orientation”. The basis for this allegation is difficult to discern. The applicant relies on the alleged incident from October 4, 2013 (discussed above), where Ms. Matte is alleged to have peeked into Person A’s class and looked at the applicant. The applicant in her Request for Order also makes reference to unspecified comments that Ms. Matte is alleged to have been making that the applicant links to the synagogue the applicant was attending. This appears to relate to the applicant’s book and Ms. Matte’s alleged request for a copy of the applicant’s book, and Ms. Matte’s references to John Travolta in her classes, and Mr. Travolta’s connection to the Church of Scientology and perhaps the Jewish faith, and the receipt of Church of Scientology literature in the applicant’s mailbox, and Ms. Matte allegedly playing Christian spiritual music in her classes, and Ms. Matte asking unspecified questions that caused the applicant to believe that Ms. Matte knew that she was no longer Christian.

55At its root, the applicant appears to believe that Ms. Matte belongs to the “religious right” and therefore disapproves of same-sex relationships, and therefore was concerned about any potential relationship between the applicant and Person A. Beyond the applicant’s own speculation, there is simply no basis to support any such allegation against Ms. Matte.

56With regard to the January 27, 2014 Application, the applicant seeks to add the ground of creed on the same basis, namely that due to their own personal religious views which are alleged to be opposed to same-sex relationships, the Centre, Ms. Becker, Ms. McEniry and Ms. McGoey tried to keep the applicant and Person A apart. Once again, this allegation is entirely speculative and is inconsistent with the uncontested facts as discussed above. There is no basis to support this allegation.

ORDER

57For all of the foregoing reasons, both Applications are dismissed in their entirety as having no reasonable prospect of success.