HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tarek Azim Applicant
-and-
Ottawa Police and Sheepdog Tactical Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: September 2, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1293 Indexed as: Azim v. Ottawa Police
APPEARANCES
Tarek Azim, Applicant Self-represented
Ottawa Police, Respondent Iain Aspenlieder, Counsel
Sheepdog Tactical, Respondent No one appearing
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of race, place of origin and creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On May 23, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction which directed that a Summary Hearing be held, at the Tribunal’s own initiative, to determine if the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondents were advised that they did not have to file Responses but had to provide the name of their respective representatives. Sheepdog Tactical did not respond to this directive.
3A Notice was sent to the parties advising that the Summary Hearing would be held on August 14, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. The respondent Sheepdog Tactical did not participate in this call. The Tribunal waited until 10 a.m. and proceeded to hear the applicant and Ottawa Police’s oral submissions.
Background
4Sheepdog Tactical has a place of business in the same building as the applicant’s employer. The applicant alleges that he was assaulted by Justin the owner of Sheepdog Tactical outside of the building on the street. After the Ottawa Police conducted an investigation the applicant was charged with assault. The applicant advised during the Summary Hearing that he was acquitted of this charge.
5The applicant believes that the owner of Sheepdog Tactical attacked him because he is racist. With respect to the Ottawa Police he believes that it did not adequately investigate the assault and believed the lies that were told by various witnesses who supported the owner of Sheepdog Tactical. The applicant believes that he was charged with assault because of prohibited grounds. He also believes that there may be some association between the respondent and the Ottawa Police which may have resulted in him being the individual who was arrested.
Sheepdog Tactical
6I asked the applicant to explain the relationship between the applicant and Sheepdog Tactical and why this relationship fell within the meaning of “with respect to goods, services and facilities”. The applicant explained that this was an error and that there was no such relationship between himself and either Sheepdog Tactical or its owner.
7When I asked why the Tribunal should accept jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the Application, as against Sheepdog Tactical, the applicant advised that it was because Justin had committed a hate crime against him. The applicant believes Justin attacked him because of his race, place of origin and creed.
8The Code does not prohibit discrimination in all facets of life, but only with respect to specific social areas as identified in the Code. See: Hutchinson v. York University, 2014 HRTO 653 at paragraph 36.
9Having considered the matter, I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the Application as against the respondent Sheepdog Tactical. In this case, the applicant indicated in his Application that the applicable social area was with respect to goods, services and facilities. However, it is clear that there was no such relationship between the applicant and Sheepdog Tactical as contemplated by the Code. Based on the applicant’s submissions he was attacked outside on the street by the owner of Sheepdog Tactical. This interaction does not engage the social area of “with respect to services, goods and facilities”.
10As such the Application as against Sheepdog Tactical is dismissed.
Ottawa Police
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.
12In this case the issue is whether the applicant can prove on a balance of probabilities a link between the incidents of alleged discrimination and the alleged prohibited grounds in the Code. In Villella v. Brampton (City), 2011 HRTO 1085, the Tribunal held that the Code is not designed to remedy all instances of unfairness. In dismissing that Application because it had no reasonable prospect of success the Tribunal held as follows:
The applicant does not allege any facts that could give rise to a finding of Code-based discrimination. His principal grievance is with customer care and service quality at the court. Other than a bald assertion that because he and other members of his family are of Italian origin and they allegedly have experienced poor service at the court, there are no additional facts or allegations, which, if accepted as true, provide the necessary nexus between the impugned conduct and Code grounds.
The Code is not designed to remedy all instances of differential treatment, poor service delivery or professional misconduct. The alleged treatment must be linked in a substantive way to a Code ground...There must be at least some objective facts and circumstances to support the theory linking the respondents' action with the Code.
13In this case the applicant makes a number of allegations against the Ottawa Police. These allegations include that the officer should not have taken witness statements from Justin’s witnesses and accepted their lies, that they did not respond quickly enough to the incident, that it refused to take his statement at the hospital, that the officer in charge had made up her mind without speaking to him, that he had to wait almost an hour at the police station, and that the police ignored his assertion that Justin had an association with the Ottawa Police in general.
14The applicant states in the Application that “What happened was a complete set-up to incriminate me because the individual who attacked me had some association with the police, and I feel I was discriminated because of my race and religion”. The applicant also explains that he can think of no other explanation or any reason that this happened to him other than the police having “shameful racist attitudes toward me”.
15Having considered this matter and the applicant’s submissions, I find that the applicant has not proposed any evidence that he has or that may be reasonably available to him which would reasonably support that the Ottawa Police discriminated against him. Though the applicant asserts that his race, place of origin and creed were factors in the Ottawa Police’s interactions with him, this is based on his own belief and speculation.
16At the core of this Application is also the applicant’s belief that there is some connection between Justin and the Ottawa Police, however, such allegations of general unfairness and conflicts of interest do not fall under the purview of the Code. Though the applicant is dissatisfied with the treatment that he received from the Ottawa Police, there is no proposed evidence that he has or that may be reasonably available to him with which the Tribunal could link this treatment with a prohibited ground under the Code.
17As such the Application as against the Ottawa Police is also dismissed.
Order
18The Application is dismissed
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of September, 2014.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair