Ogunkoya v. Humber River Hospital, 2014 HRTO 115

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kola Ogunkoya Applicant

-and-

Humber River Hospital Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: January 27, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 115 Indexed as: Ogunkoya v. Humber River Hospital

APPEARANCES

Kola Ogunkoya, Applicant Self-represented

Humber River Hospital, Respondent Deborah Dennie, Representative

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry and place of origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant alleges that he went to the respondent hospital to have his blood tested because he was not feeling well. He alleges that employees of the hospital, including a doctor, some ambulance attendants and nurses, held him down and forcibly injected him with an unknown substance. He claims that the prohibited grounds of discrimination cited above were factors in the decision to inject him against his will.

3The respondent denies discrimination and states that the applicant was assessed at the hospital by a physician who determined that he was to be involuntarily admitted to hospital in accordance with the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7. When the applicant then began to leave the hospital he was restrained and injected with drugs in order to calm him down.

4A summary hearing was scheduled to be held by teleconference on January 27, 2014. The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

5In accordance with the principles set out in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8 and 9, the Tribunal will hold a summary hearing if it is of the view that an applicant may not be able to prove a link between the allegedly discriminatory events and the grounds of discrimination that have been cited in an Application. In this case the issue is whether the applicant has any reasonable prospect of showing (based on the evidence he has or is reasonably available to him) that his race, colour, ancestry or place of origin were factors in the decision to involuntarily restrain and inject him with drugs.

6I explained to the applicant that the Tribunal does not have authority to deal with questions of general unfairness and that he would have to highlight the evidence that he has or is reasonably available to him that would link the events at the hospital to the grounds of discrimination that he relies upon.

7During the hearing the applicant stated that the respondent discriminated against him because he is not part of mainstream Canadian society as he is not inclined to become a Freemason, and Freemasons dominate all aspects of Canadian society. He stated that Canadians can tell who is and who is not an outsider simply by looking a person in the eye. When he came to the hospital he was viewed as an outsider and the respondent’s employees decided to deal with him by injecting him and rendering him helpless.

8I twice asked the applicant what this had to do with his race, colour, ancestry or place of origin. He could not point to any evidence that would establish a link to these prohibited grounds and stated that this was a case of general harassment by the respondent.

9As the Tribunal noted in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, at para. 17:

The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code or the intention by a respondent to commit a reprisal for asserting one’s Code rights.

10If I accept the facts as alleged in the Application, I am unable to conclude that there is any evidence available to the applicant that would establish a link between those facts and discrimination on the grounds identified by the applicant. The applicant was unable to identify specific incidents, statements or documents that would show that any of the grounds of discrimination identified by him were a factor in how he was treated by the respondent.

11As the applicant has failed to point to any evidence that would establish a link between the alleged incident and the grounds of discrimination under the Code, I conclude that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

ORDER

12The Application is dismissed as it has no reasonable prospect of success.