Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Christine Officer Applicant
-and-
Lom Nava Cooperative Home Inc. Board of Directors, Precision Property Management Inc. and Caroline Carty Respondents
Decision
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: June 25, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 934 Indexed as: Officer v. Lom Nava Cooperative Home Inc. Board of Directors
Appearances
Christine Officer, Applicant Self-represented
Lom Nava Cooperative Home Inc. Board of Directors, Precision Property Management Inc. and Caroline Carty, Respondents Maria Kotsopolous, Counsel
Reasons for Decision
1In a Case Assessment Direction issued on March 14, 2014 the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this 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. The respondents were not required to file Responses.
2A summary hearing was held on June 23, 2014 by telephone conference call. All parties participated.
3Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that:
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.
4Details 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.
5The Application is dismissed.
6As was pointed out in the Case Assessment Direction the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment on the grounds set out in the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (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. To show discrimination, an applicant must prove a link between a respondent’s alleged actions and a Code ground. The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine if the applicant can point to any evidence in his possession, or that maybe reasonably available to the applicant that would suggest that the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. At the outset of the hearing I asked the applicant to point me to the evidence she had available to her which would link the incidents complained of in her Application to the Code. In her Application the applicant makes a number of complaints of what she describes as incompetent, unethical and corrupt behaviour by the Board of the respondent Co-op and/or the property management company and the individual also identified as respondents.
7At the heart of the applicant’s claim of discrimination and reprisal is a decision of the Board to reverse a decision made to allow a resource centre to operate out of Co-op space in favour of children’s programming. The applicant also complains the Board did not follow its own by-laws in making this decision. The applicant also complains that she was verbally abused by a member of the Co-op. The applicant’s complaints relate to what she perceives as unfair, incompetent and unethical management of the respondent Co-op. What is missing from the Application is any allegation which would connect any of these complaints to any of the grounds of discrimination the applicant has relied on from the Code. In response to my question at the outset of the hearing the applicant essentially restated the complaints outlined in her Application and she was unable to supplement or further explain how her complaints related to a prohibited ground under the Code. The applicant did frame her remarks in terms of human rights writ large and included notions of income inequality, poverty and other issues which are not protected by the Code, which despite its title, seeks to prevent discrimination on a finite number of protected grounds.
8In my view the applicant can point to no evidence which would tend to support the conclusion that there is any connection between the incidents she has complained of and any of the grounds of discrimination she has plead. Accordingly this aspect of the Application must be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success.
9The applicant also alleges reprisal. The applicant described the eviction of the resource centre as a reprisal. During the summary hearing, I asked the applicant what the respondent was reprising against her about. The applicant responded that she had stood up to the Board and challenged it to act in accordance with its by-laws and the principles of the co-op movement. This is not a reprisal within the meaning of section 8 of the Code which only applies to actions that are intended as a reprisal for asserting one’s Code rights. See Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. [31](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2