HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Randy Roberts
Applicant
-and-
St. Leonard’s Community Services and Brant Community Healthcare System
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Roberts v. St. Leonard’s Community Services
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Randy Roberts, Applicant
Self-represented
St. Leonard’s Community Services, Respondent
Elisha Jamieson-Davies, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability.
Background
2The applicant identifies himself as a person with mental health and addiction diagnoses. The applicant states that he was involved in the creation of a detoxification/withdrawal management facility in the Brantford, Ontario area. The applicant alleges that the respondent St. Leonard’s Community Services (“St. Leonard’s”) denied him the opportunity to volunteer on the steering committee of the new facility because of his addiction and mental health diagnoses and because he was a patient of St. Leonard’s.
3St. Leonard’s identifies itself as a community agency, located in Brantford, Ontario, that engages in the provision of services in the field of community justice, employment, youth and family, and addictions and mental health services. St. Leonard’s states it established and staffed a detoxification centre, known as the WMS Centre, which was funded by the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Local Health Integration Network in October 2013. St. Leonard’s denies violating the applicant’s Code rights, but states that active clients, such as the applicant, are required to have a two year separation period from the agency before participating as a volunteer or an employee because of the confidential information to which they would have access. St. Leonard’s informed the applicant that he could not be a member of the WHS Centre’s Advisory Committee because he was an active client.
St. Leonard’s Request
4On August 1, 2014, St. Leonard filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (the “Request”) in which it submitted that the Tribunal should dismiss the Application because it is outside of its jurisdiction. Specifically, St. Leonard’s submitted that the subject matter of the Application, the fact that the applicant was not allowed to be a member of the WHS Centre’s Advisory Committee, does not come within the social area of “services”. St. Leonard submitted that the interaction that forms the basis of the Application is restricted to the formation of the Advisory Committee and has no connection to the mental health and addictions services that St. Leonard’s provides to the applicant. Accordingly, St. Leonard’s submitted that section 1 of the Code, which prohibits discrimination with respect services, goods and facilities, does not apply to the applicant’s allegations.
The Applicant’s Reply
5The applicant filed a Reply in response to the Request on August 15, 2014. The applicant submitted that the policy on which St. Leonard’s purports to rely discriminates with respect to services related to volunteer activities and with respect to employment. The applicant also submitted that activities such as exposure therapy, community development, outreach, client empowerment, education and volunteer opportunities are services that St. Leonard’s provides. The applicant states that these services include the opportunity for clients to join board and advisory committees. The applicant submitted that volunteering to share his experiences was a valuable part of his treatment.
Analysis and Decision
6Section 1 of the Code states as follows:
Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.
Section 5(1) of the Code states as follows:
Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
7An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
8On the materials filed by the parties it is not clear that membership of the WMS Advisory Committee was a service provided by the respondent. However, review of the Application indicates that the applicant’s allegations engage the social area of employment. As noted above, the applicant’s Reply submissions indicate that he also alleges that St. Leonard’s actions amount to discrimination “with respect to employment” under section 5 of the Code. In Rocha v. Pardons and Waivers of Canada, 2012 HRTO 2234, the Tribunal found that volunteer work can be considered “employment” for the purposes of the Code. Consequently, it is not plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application does not come within the Code. In my view, the hearing adjudicator will be in the best position to decide which, if any, social area is engaged by this Application.
9St. Leonard’s request to dismiss the Application is denied.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of August, 2014.
“Signed by” __________________________________
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair