Elizabeth Efthymiadis v. Minto Properties Inc. and G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd., 2014 HRTO 1305

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Efthymiadis

Applicant

-and-

Minto Properties Inc. and G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd.

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: September 5, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1305

Indexed as: Efthymiadis v. Minto Properties Inc.

APPEARANCES

Elizabeth Efthymiadis, Applicant

Self-represented

Minto Properties Inc., Respondent

Maria Mavrikkou, Counsel

G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd, Respondent

Tina Baldwin Representative

BACKGROUND

1This Application, filed on December 12, 2013, alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2By Case Assessment Direction dated April 8, 2014 (the “CAD”), the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.

3The summary hearing was conducted by teleconference on September 2, 2014.

Summary Hearing Process

4The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure as well as the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests. The purpose of a summary hearing is to consider, early in the proceeding, whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part because there is no reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.

5The Tribunal has held on many occasions that it does not have jurisdiction over general claims of unfairness unrelated to the Code. Discrimination under the Code generally involves an allegation of adverse treatment because of one or more of the grounds listed in the Code. Adverse treatment is not discriminatory in the legal sense unless there is proof that one or more of the personal characteristics listed in the Code was a factor in the treatment the applicant experienced.

6The test that is applied at the summary hearing stage is whether an application has no reasonable prospect of success. At this stage, the Tribunal is not determining whether the applicant is telling the truth or assessing the impact of the treatment she experienced. The test of no reasonable prospect of success is determined by assuming the applicant’s version of events is true unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary.

7However, accepting the facts alleged by the applicant does not include accepting the applicant’s assumptions about why she was treated adversely. The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine if reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence the applicant is able to point to, either in her possession or evidence that may be reasonably available to her, which tend to support the applicant’s belief that she has experienced discrimination or reprisal under the Code. Although the applicant may point to evidence that support her allegations, there are no findings made at the summary hearing stage in relation to that evidence.

8The question that the Tribunal must decide at a summary hearing is whether there is likely to be sufficient direct or indirect evidence available to connect the adverse treatment allegedly experienced by the applicant with the grounds of discrimination alleged in the application. Sometimes, applicants are not in a position to point to any evidence beyond their own suspicions to support their belief that they have been discriminated or reprised against. In such a situation, applications may be found to have no reasonable prospect of success. For an application to continue in the Tribunal’s process following a summary hearing, 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.

9Having set out the basic framework for determining whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part because it has no reasonable prospect of success, I now turn to the facts of this case as set out in this Application.

The Facts

10The applicant is a tenant in a building owned by the respondent Minto Properties Inc. (“Minto”). The respondent G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd. (“G4S”) provides security at the building.

11On December 13, 2012, two police officers and an employee of G4S attended at the applicant’s apartment. The applicant was advised that they were at her apartment because of a noise complaint. The applicant told them the noise was not coming from her apartment. The applicant alleges that during this conversation, the G4S employee accused the applicant of communicating with people below the earth. The applicant inferred from this comment that he was suggesting that she communicates with spirits.

12On December 13, 2012, the applicant was served with a N5 Notice to Terminate Tenancy Early because of the alleged noise problem. The N5 was never proceeded with by Minto.

13The applicant alleges that the comment from the G4S employee that she communicates with people below the earth was discriminatory. She asserts it was made because the applicant is “foreign” and is not of English ancestry. The applicant asserts the N5 resulted from the discriminatory comment by the G4S employee. Her complaint of discrimination relates to the comment, not the N5. She asserts the G4S employee was an agent of Minto.

14The applicant disputes the responses of the respondents and the police (who have been removed as a party to this Application) regarding what transpired on December 13, 2012. I do not have to resolve that dispute because for the purposes of this decision, I assume the applicant’s version of the events is true. The issue on the summary hearing is whether there are facts to support the applicant’s perception that the comment was discriminatory.

analysis

15In order to determine whether the applicant’s perception of discrimination is born out, the Tribunal must decide whether there is evidence that the applicant has or is likely to have that will establish a link between the comment and the applicant’s race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and age. The applicant states she is of mixed Greek/Italian origin.

16While there are certainly some comments that, on their face, are demeaning to people because of their ancestry, it is difficult to see how a comment about communicating with people below the earth has anything to do with ancestry. Where the link to ancestry is not apparent by the nature of the comment itself, there must be facts alleged to support such linkage. In this case, there are no facts alleged. In the absence of any facts, I am left with the applicant’s perception alone.

17There is no question that the applicant was deeply offended by the comment. I do not question that for a minute. However, this does not provide a sufficient basis to proceed with the Application. As the Tribunal has stated many times, it has no jurisdiction over claims of general unfairness.

18In the absence of any real or cogent facts linking the comment with applicant’s race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and age, the claim is essentially a bald allegation of discrimination based on the applicant’s suspicion and speculation that the comment was made because she is “foreign”. The Tribunal has dismissed applications in similar circumstances and it must do so here. See Mitchell v. Kerry’s Place Autism Services, 2012 HRTO 834.

19For these reasons, I must dismiss the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

ORDER

20The Application is dismissed.