Michael Moore v. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and Jill Hulton, 2014 HRTO 904

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michael Moore Applicant

-and-

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and Jill Hulton Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: June 19, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 904 Indexed as: Moore v. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to medical services because of creed.

2After reviewing the Application, it was not clear to the Tribunal how the applicant would be able to show that the respondents discriminated against him contrary to the Human Rights Code. The Tribunal directed that a summary hearing would be held to determine if the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. In a series of Case Assessment Directions, the Tribunal explained that the Tribunal Rules provide that an Application may be dismissed if there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish that he experienced discrimination contrary to the Code.

3The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by telephone conference call for July 2, 2014. The applicant subsequently wrote to the Tribunal asking that his case be decided on the basis of written submissions rather than an oral hearing. The Tribunal granted this request and the applicant and the respondent were invited to make submissions about the Application and whether there was a reasonable prospect of success. The applicant was invited in particular to address what exactly happened, who was involved, when it happened and where it happened.

4The respondent did not make submissions and the time for doing so has elapsed. The applicant sent written submissions on May 2, 2014 and further submissions on May 27, 2014.

5In his submissions, the applicant indicates that the discrimination he alleges happened in a letter from the personal respondent that was dated January 7, 2014. The applicant does not indicate what was said in this letter that he felt was discriminatory. The applicant also refers to various articles of the International Bill of Human Rights.

6This Tribunal only has power to deal with matters that come under the Human Rights Code. This Tribunal cannot enforce the International Bill of Human Rights. The applicant has not identified anything that happened that could be identified as discrimination under the Code. On this basis, I must conclude that, based on the information provided by the applicant, there is no reasonable prospect that he could successfully establish that the respondents discriminated against him contrary to the Code.

7The Application is dismissed.