Kalkat v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 1105

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ruminder Kalkat

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Q Residential, Astoria Place, Office of the Independent Police Review Director, Equifax Canada Inc., Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario, JUS Toronto, Toronto Fire Services, Across Boundaries and Toronto Transit Commission

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: August 19, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1105

Indexed as: Kalkat v. Toronto Police Services Board

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment, goods and services, housing, contracts and membership in a vocational association because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, marital status, age and receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Application names numerous respondents and makes numerous allegations of incidents that he connects to these respondents. The Tribunal has sent the applicant a number of requests for further details about the alleged events of discrimination including more details on dates of the alleged incidents and how what he alleges is connected to a ground of discrimination under the Code.

3On May 14, 2015 the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as Against Certain Respondents. The Notice stated that a review of the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by Q Residential, Astoria Place, Office of the Independent Police Review Director, Equifax Canada Inc., Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario, JUS Toronto, Toronto Fire Services, Across Boundaries and Toronto Transit Commission. The applicant was asked to provide more details to explain how each of these organizations is alleged to have breached the Code.

4In response to this Notice, the applicant provided submissions that repeat some of the allegations that he has previously made in his Application and in other materials he has sent to the Tribunal. Some of the allegations made throughout the materials he has filed include: an incident when the Landlord and Tenant Board adjourned a hearing; Toronto Transit Commission drivers whom he alleges have been acting inappropriately and saying things about him as well as “just watching as ladies brush their purses against him”; and people breaking into his apartment to steal things or make a mess and then strangers know personal things about him. He also alleges that the Information and Privacy Commissioner did not provide good service when he complained about breaches of privacy.

5The applicant also makes an allegation that he is experiencing discrimination for not being religious or “true to his skin” but has provided no further details about who is discriminating, when these incidents happened and what happened that he alleges is discrimination.

6Although the applicant has sent materials on a number of occasions in response to the Tribunal’s requests for further details about these allegations, he has not provided any details to demonstrate how the incidents are connected to grounds of discrimination under the Code.

7The applicant also alleges that members of the Toronto Police Services are harassing and threatening him. He alleges that he reported an event of sexual abuse when he was a young child to Toronto Police Services and he alleges that he was called a girl and a homosexual when he made this report. He did not provide any details about the dates when he made this report or to whom he reported within Toronto Police Services.

8The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on July 2, 2015 directing the applicant to provide the dates of when the allegations against the Toronto Police Services occurred and if they occurred more than one year prior to November 19, 2014 when the Application was filed, to provide reasons for his delay in filing.

9On July 15, 2015 the applicant requested more time to provide this information and the Tribunal gave him until August 12, 2015 to provide the details. The applicant has responded to the Case Assessment Direction. He has not provided details of the dates of the incidents with Toronto Police Services that he alleged in his Application. He detailed incidents of a Toronto Police officer passing by his house every two weeks, another officer saying to him “you do not have kids” and giving him misleading legal advice.

Analysis and Decision

10An Application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s power to address the issues raised in the Application. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

11The Tribunal’s power is limited to enforcement of the Code which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment, services, contracts) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code such as age, race, marital status or disability. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code. Therefore, for the Tribunal to have the power to consider an Application, that Application must contain allegations that connect a respondent’s behaviour to the applicant’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.

Allegations against Q Residential, Astoria Place, Office of the Independent Police Review Director, Equifax Canada Inc., Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario, JUS Toronto, Toronto Fire Services, Across Boundaries and Toronto Transit Commission

12I find it plain and obvious that the Application against the named organizational respondents as detailed in paragraph 3 must be dismissed. The allegations can be generally described as invasions of privacy and dissatisfaction with services but they do not identify specific acts of alleged discrimination, within the meaning of the Code. As the Tribunal has stated in many cases, the Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into all claims of unfairness. The Application as against these respondents is therefore dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the following reasons.

13Although the applicant named Equifax Canada Inc., JUS Toronto, Toronto Fire Services, and Across Boundaries as respondents in the Application he has not made any allegations that could be connected to these respondents. The Application as against these respondents is therefore dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

14The allegations against Office of the Independent Police Review Director, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario, and Toronto Transit Commission can be described as general dissatisfaction with the service the applicant received from these respondents. They do not identify any acts of alleged discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The Application as against these respondents is therefore dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

15The allegations against Q Residential and Astoria Place can be described as alleged invasions of privacy. They do not identify any acts of alleged discrimination, within the meaning of the Code. The Application as against this respondent is therefore dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Allegations against Toronto Police Services Board

16Although the allegations against Toronto Police Services could potentially be found to be discrimination within the meaning of the Code, it is unclear whether the part of the Application that relates to these allegations is beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the allegations were made outside the one-year time limit set out in s.34(1) of the Code or because the allegations provide no connection to a ground protected by the Code. More details are required from the applicant before such a determination on jurisdiction can be made. The Tribunal will hold a summary hearing to address these issues.

Delay

17Sections 34(1) and (2) of the Code state:

34(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.

18Section 34(1) is a mandatory limitation period established under the Code. The Tribunal has held in numerous decisions that if an applicant seeks to rely upon an untimely allegation, he or she must satisfy the Tribunal that the delay in raising the allegations was incurred in good faith pursuant to section 34(2) of the Code. The Tribunal has set a fairly high onus on applicants to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, while recognizing that there will be legitimate circumstances that justify exercising the discretion under section 34(2). See Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241.

Is there no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application as against the Toronto Police Services Board will succeed?

19The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with or remedy general allegations of unfairness. The Tribunal only has the power to deal with discrimination, harassment or reprisal that is prohibited by the Code. Discrimination in the legal sense requires proof that the respondent's adverse treatment of the applicant is based, at least in part, on the applicant’s disability or other prohibited ground under the Code. In other words, the prohibited ground must be connected to the adverse treatment.

20Where it appears that all or part of an application may have no reasonable prospect of success the Tribunal may determine it is appropriate to hold a “summary hearing” on that issue. The summary hearing gives the applicant an opportunity to more fully explain the allegations contained in the application and to hear argument from the parties before the Tribunal makes its decision about whether all or part of the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

21If, after examining the allegations and hearing the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal determines that an application has no reasonable prospect of success, it will be dismissed. If the Tribunal does not dismiss an application, it will continue in the Tribunal’s process. In some cases, the Tribunal may find that only part of the application will move ahead, while part of it is dismissed.

22There are a number of reasons why the Tribunal may decide to hold a summary hearing. In this case the Tribunal has decided to hold a summary hearing because:

It appears that the applicant may be unable to prove that there is a connection between what the respondent Toronto Police Services Board is alleged to have done, and the grounds of disability cited in the Application. That is, although the applicant may believe that the conduct of the respondent is connected to the ground, it is not clear that there is evidence available to the applicant to prove the connection. The focus of this inquiry is on the evidence the applicant has or may be able to obtain.

23At a summary hearing, unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal assumes the facts alleged by the applicant to be true. For example, if an applicant alleges they were fired from their employment or denied a service, the Tribunal will assume this to be true for the purposes of the summary hearing. However, accepting that someone experienced adverse treatment does not include accepting the applicant’s assumptions or belief about why they were treated this way.

24The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine if there is evidence available to support the applicant’s belief that the disadvantageous treatment he experienced arises from discrimination. In order to warrant proceeding to a full hearing of the merits some evidence must exist, which goes beyond the applicant’s feeling or belief that a prohibited ground of discrimination played a role in what he/she experienced. The parties will not be submitting evidence for the purposes of the summary hearing portion of the preliminary hearing. However, the applicant should be prepared to explain to the Tribunal what the proposed evidence will be if the Application is allowed to proceed to a hearing on the merits. If the applicant is unable to point to evidence, beyond their own assumptions or belief, an application may be found to have no reasonable prospect of success and be dismissed.

25While the primary focus in the summary hearing is on the applicant’s proposed evidence, the respondent’s allegations may also be considered where the facts are not in dispute or where it is plainly obvious that a fact must be true. However, the Tribunal is careful to ensure that an application is not dismissed at the summary hearing stage simply because the respondent has an alternative explanation of the events.

26The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure as well as the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests available on the Tribunal’s website at under the section called, “Rules and Practice Directions at http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/rules-and-practice-directions.

27The applicant will generally proceed first during this summary hearing and must be prepared to address the issues discussed above.

Order and Directions

28For the reasons stated above, the Application against Q Residential, Astoria Place, Office of the Independent Police Review Director, Equifax Canada Inc., Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario, JUS Toronto, Toronto Fire Services, Across Boundaries and Toronto Transit Commission is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These organizations shall be removed as respondents to the Application. The style of cause shall be amended for any future decision or direction.

29The Tribunal will serve this Interim Decision along with the Application on the Toronto Police Services Board.

30The Registrar will schedule a half day hearing by conference call. The parties will receive a notice of hearing, setting out the time, date and telephone numbers for the hearing.

31No witnesses will be called during the hearing. The Tribunal will hear the parties’ arguments about whether all or part of the Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable chance of success and/or because the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to hear the Application that was filed beyond one year from the date of the last alleged incident of discrimination.

32The parties shall deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases they intend to rely upon for the hearing no later than 14 days prior to the date of the teleconference hearing.

33I am not seized.