HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Valerie Belsito
Applicant
-and-
Red Cross Care Partners
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Belsito v. Red Cross Care Partners
APPEARANCES
Valerie Belsito, Applicant
Self-represented
Red Cross Care Partners, Respondent
Kathryn J. Bird, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability.
2The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing (“Request”) on January 7, 2014 which the applicant opposed. In a Case Assessment Direction issued on February 11, 2014 the Request was granted and a summary hearing was held on May 29, 2014 by telephone conference call. All parties participated.
3The Application is dismissed.
4Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure read as follows:
19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure or witness statements.
5Details 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.
6In this case, the issue is whether, assuming the applicant’s allegations to be true, they may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. The Tribunal does not have a general power to remedy unfairness or poor service delivery. It can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment on the grounds set out in the Code. To succeed in an Application, an applicant must be able to prove discrimination on the basis of a Code ground on a balance of probabilities. For the purposes of a summary hearing, to show discrimination, an applicant must point to any evidence which is reasonably available to her which would tend to establish a link between a respondent’s alleged actions and a Code ground – that is she was treated differently than others because of her particular disability
7The applicant describes herself as elderly and a person who, because she is unable to use her legs, has significant mobility issues. She receives home care from the respondent. In her Application the applicant raises a number of concerns about the quality of service she receives. The applicant complains that she has to train the supports workers as their supervisor stand by and watches. The applicant complains that the support workers are said to be trained but are not. The applicant complains that assistive devices which have been purchased at considerable expense have rarely been used. The applicant complains that her catheter often leaks because the support workers are not properly trained. The applicant also complaints the support works are routinely late of fail to show up at all. At the hearing the applicant asserted that others of her friends and acquaintances have experienced similar problems with this respondent as well as with other agencies providing similar services. The applicant provided a series of “diaries” outlining these and other concerns of a similar nature.
8As indicated the applicant’s complaints are, essentially, that the services she receives from the respondent are inadequate and sub-standard. She also seems to suggest that the service delivery of the respondent has deteriorated over time. The difficulty is, as I indicated at the summary hearing, that there is no evidence to which the applicant can point, either in her possession or that may be reasonably available to her, which would tend to establish that the applicant has been treated differently than others in similar circumstances because of her particular disability. The applicant argues that she was only treated the way she was because she is a person with a disability, but that is merely an assertion. At best what the applicant asserts is that the services provided to her and others, all persons with disabilities of one kind or another, are provided indifferently and in her view inadequately. This is not discrimination under the Code, even if it is inappropriate and perhaps unfair.
9The applicant may well be frustrated by what she perceives to be inadequate service delivery and there are other agencies to which the applicant can complain which regulate the adequacy of care provided by the respondent. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the quality of services provided by agencies such as the respondent absent evidence of discrimination contrary to the Code.
10For all of these reasons the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of May, 2014.
“Signed By”
David Muir
Vice-chair