Brown v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 1473

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Judith Brown

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the

Minister of Community and Social Services

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Judith Brown on behalf of Douglas Brown

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the

Minister of Community and Social Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: October 6, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1473

Indexed as: Brown v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

APPEARANCES

Judith Brown and Judith Brown on behalf of Douglas Brown, Applicants

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, Respondent

Y. Ranganathan, Counsel

Introduction

1These Applications allege discrimination with respect to services because of family status and association with a person with a developmental disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2Judith Brown provides personal care for her son, Douglas Brown, who has a developmental disability and lives at home with her. The Applications essentially allege 1) that the respondent does not pay Ms. Brown for her work providing personal care to her son who cannot live independently because of his disability, and 2) that the respondent, by not paying Ms. Brown, denies Mr. Brown the choice of who he would like to provide care for him.

summary hearing

3In a Case Assessment Direction dated January 27, 2014, the Tribunal noted that the it did not appear that the applicant would be able to prove a link between the respondent’s actions and the grounds alleged, and directed that a summary hearing by telephone be held to determine whether the Applications should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that they will succeed.

4On June 24, 2014, the parties participated in the summary hearing by telephone. The parties discussed various financial services and supports like:

• Services and supports provided under the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008, S.O. 2008 c.14 (“SIPDDA”)

• Services and supports provided under the Passport Program, a programme funded pursuant to the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.M-20

• Services and supports provided under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, S.O. 1997 c.25 Sched. B, (“ODSPA”)

5The respondent explained that funds under the Passport Program are provided for respite care only, so that a primary caregiver, like Ms. Brown, could never obtain support under the Program. Those that obtain such funds are alternate caregivers who come to relieve the primary caregiver. The applicant did not dispute this description of the Passport Program.

6The respondent further explained that the ODSPA provides income and employment support, not funding for caregiving. The applicant did not dispute this description of funding possibilities under the ODSPA.

7Ms. Brown ultimately agreed that the respondent only provides funding to corporations for the provision of personal care to adults with developmental disabilities like the disability her son has. It does not provide funding to any individual to provide personal care services in an individual’s home to a person with a disability. Ms. Brown agreed that even if Mr. Brown were not her son, but instead a complete stranger, she would not obtain funding from the respondent for personal care for that stranger.

8Given that Ms. Brown could not provide any evidence that her and her son’s allegations that their family status is a reason for not receiving funds to provide Mr. Brown personal care, the allegations of discrimination because of family status that they made in their Applications are dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

9With respect to the allegation of discrimination because of association, Ms. Brown was unable to point to any evidence that her association with someone with a developmental disability (Mr. Brown) is a reason for her not receiving funds, and I therefore find that that allegation has no reasonable prospect of success.

order

10The Applications are dismissed.