Samir Ibrahim and Yvonne Stafanous v. Guelph Police Service et al., 2014 HRTO 1594

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Samir Ibrahim Applicant

-and-

Guelph Police Service, State Farm Insurance of Canada, and Other Named Respondents Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Yvonne Stafanous Applicant

-and-

Guelph Police Service, State Farm Insurance of Canada, and Other Named Respondents Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: October 29, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1594 Indexed as: Ibrahim v. Guelph Police Service

APPEARANCES

Samir Ibrahim and Yvonne Stafanous, Applicants

Samir Ibrahim, Self-represented

Guelph Police Service, Respondent

Judith C. Sidlofsky Stoffman, Counsel

1These two Applications were 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 or services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, age and disability.

2The applicants are mother and son. They allege that they were treated unfairly by the respondents in relation to a robbery which occurred at the home of Ms. Stafanous on October 7, 2010. The Applications were filed on April 29, 2013.

3On May 17, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) indicating that the Applications appear to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction with respect to the respondents State Farm Insurance of Canada, and two individually named respondents. The narratives of the two Applications fail to identify any allegations against the respondents State Farm Insurance of Canada, Gregory Brimblecombe, or Michael Mollison which could support a finding of discrimination under the Code. In addition, the Applications appear to be out of time pursuant to section 34 (1) and (2) of Code which read as follows:

(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

4On May 27, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) re-issuing the NOID. The narrative of both Applications makes mention of an interaction with an officer from the Guelph Police Service who is alleged to have made racist statements to the applicants in the context of investigating the robbery. The affidavits which accompanied the Applications as well as the submissions in response to the Notice make it clear that the applicants intended to file their Applications against the Guelph Police Service. The original NOID did not indicate the intention of the Tribunal to dismiss against the Guelph Police Service.

5The Tribunal directed that a teleconference would take place to hear submissions from the parties on the jurisdictional issues which were set out in the NOID.

6The respondent, Guelph Police Service, was represented by counsel who attended the call as scheduled. The other respondents were not required to participate in the call. The applicant, who was acting for himself and his mother Ms. Stafanous, was 25 minutes late joining the call. I heard submissions from the applicant on the nature of his allegations and his decision to file the Applications against the respondents. During his submissions, he had to be advised that his conduct was inappropriate when he referred to a woman as a “bitch”.

7I then asked counsel for the respondent to provide her submissions. She began by reviewing the chronology of interactions between her client and the applicant for the purpose of dealing with the timeliness issue. The applicant then interrupted counsel, shouted at her, indicated that he was very angry and called counsel a criminal. I intervened and attempted to advise the applicant that his conduct was inappropriate. The applicant continued shouting and name-calling. I advised the applicant that if he continued to conduct himself in this manner I would dismiss the Applications. The applicant continued shouting over me and then hung up the phone. Counsel for the respondent then completed her submissions.

8The investigation into the applicant’s report of the robbery took place from approximately October 8, 2010 until January 27, 2012. The investigation resulted in charges against the applicant relating to forged documents and fraud. The respondent alleges that following January 27, 2012, the only contact initiated by the respondent was a series of telephone messages, the last of which occurred on March 10, 2014, advising the applicant about the charges and giving him an opportunity to voluntarily attend at a police station to be charged and released.

9It is alleged by the respondent that between March 10, 2012 and May, 2013, the applicant left hundreds of telephone messages described as “haranguing, racist, accusatory, confrontational, and threatening” which were recorded from the voicemail of the Officer who had most recently been involved in the investigation into the robbery.

10The applicant alleges that after he was advised about the charges he complained to the Chief of Police. He also filed a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) on September 20, 2012. The OIPRD declined to deal with the complaint on October 22, 2012 on the basis that it could not identify any breach of the Police Services Act or its Code of Conduct.

11The Applications before me were filed on April 29, 2013.

12It is alleged by the respondent that on August 2, 2013, as a result of the applicant being arrested in an unrelated matter, it was discovered by the arresting officers that the March 7, 2012 warrant related to forged documents and fraud was outstanding. The officers arresting the applicant on August 2, 2013 executed the outstanding March 7, 2012 warrant and took the applicant into custody at which time the applicant was held for a bail hearing and subsequently released on a Recognizance on August 6, 2013. This arrest took place several months after the filing of the Applications before this Tribunal.

13The applicant’s conduct during the teleconference, which was highly inappropriate and disrespectful, constitutes sufficient grounds for the dismissal of these Applications. However, I have not dismissed the Applications for that reason.

14The reason for the dismissal against the respondent Guelph Police Service is that the applicant failed to provide a basis for finding that the delay in filing the Applications was incurred in good faith. Prior to the filing of the Applications, the last contact the applicant had in relation to the robbery investigation occurred on March 10, 2012. The applicant’s explanation for failing to file the Applications within one year of that date is that he was not aware of his rights and that a friend advised him about the Tribunal and assisted him in downloading the application form sometime in 2012 or 2013.

15In the complaint filed with the OIPRD in September 2012, the applicant accuses the respondent of discrimination and racism. This is not a case where the applicant became aware, at some point after the incident, that a prohibited ground of discrimination may have been a factor in what he experienced. The applicant believed, from his earliest interaction with the respondent, that he had been a victim of discrimination. The fact that he did not make efforts to inform himself of his rights under the Code as well as the time limits for filing an application, does not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

16Accordingly, the Applications against the Guelph Police Service are dismissed.

The Remaining Respondents

17The Applications before me also name State Farm Insurance of Canada, and two lawyers. The applicant alleges that he and his mother were taken advantage of by the insurance company, the police and “their lawyers”. He submits that the insurance company did not send investigators or adjusters to their home to see the damage and that they “dragged their feet” in relation to the claim. The Applications do not contain any allegations against the individual respondents.

18The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to remedy general allegations of unfairness. The role of the Tribunal is to resolve claims of discrimination. Discrimination requires proof of a connection between adverse treatment and the prohibited grounds cited by the applicant. In this case, the applicant has not provided the Tribunal with anything more than the bald allegation that he was treated unfairly by the respondents because of his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, age and disability. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction over these Applications.

19Accordingly, the Applications are dismissed in their entirety.