HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jane Price
Applicant
-and-
Canadian Mental Health Association
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Price v. Canadian Mental Health Association
APPEARANCES
Jane Price, Applicant
Self-represented
Canadian Mental Health Association, Respondent
Marie Levant, Representative
1This Application alleges reprisal and discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2After reviewing the Application, the Tribunal determined that it would be appropriate to hold a summary hearing. This was explained in a Case Assessment Direction dated May 12, 2015.
3The purpose of the summary hearing was to allow the applicant to clarify what the Application is about, why she believes she experienced reprisal and discrimination and what evidence she would be able to provide that would show that the discrimination and reprisal occurred. If after a summary hearing the Tribunal determines that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success, it may be dismissed.
4The summary hearing was held by telephone conference call on August 26, 2015. The applicant participated and Jeannette McGrath and Marie Levant were present on behalf of the respondent. Ms. McGrath is a support services worker who has worked with the applicant and Ms. Levant is a Manager of Court Services.
5The Application concerns issues the applicant was having in October and November 2014. She was held in custody and Ms. McGrath went to visit her. Ms. McGrath spoke to a Crown Attorney who asked her to provide information about the applicant. The applicant provided a signed consent form and Ms. McGrath provided a letter dated November 10, 2014 that was given to the Crown Attorney.
6The applicant believes that the letter contains incorrect information about the applicant’s disability and history. She is also concerned about the process that occurred after the Crown Attorney received the letter and whether the letter was shared with her legal representatives by the Crown Attorney. The applicant alleges that as a result of these things her rights were violated in the court proceeding and so were her rights as a tenant.
7Having heard the applicant’s explanation and considered the documents that she has submitted, I conclude that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could successfully establish that Ms. McGrath discriminated against the applicant by writing the letter of November 10, 2014. Ms. McGrath was asked to provide information to assist the Crown and she did so. The respondent says that Ms. McGrath prepared the letter based on her understanding of the applicant’s disability and history. Even if that understanding was wrong, it does not mean that it was discriminatory.
8To show discrimination in this case, the applicant would have to show that the misinformation which she believes Ms. McGrath provided to the Crown Attorney in the letter was provided consciously or unconsciously because of something discriminatory, for example, prejudice or stereotype about people with disability. The applicant has not identified any evidence like that, but only says that she does not agree with some of the information in the letter. I accept that the applicant believes that some of the information is wrong, but that does not mean that the letter was discriminatory.
9In regard to what may or may not have happened in the court process, for example, whether information was properly shared with counsel, these are concerns relating to the processes of the Courts or processes supervised by the Courts. Even if the applicant could show that any procedural problems were related to the conduct of the respondent, this Tribunal does not have the authority to review what occurred in the relevant court proceedings.
10With regard to reprisal, section 8 of the Code provides:
- Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.
11The applicant has not identified anything that Ms. McGrath or any other employee of the respondent did that could be identified as something that was done in reprisal for the applicant claiming or enforcing her rights under the Code.
12For these reasons, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application could succeed and it is dismissed on that basis.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of August, 2015.
“Signed By”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair