HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cheryl Harvey

Applicant

-and-

Evan’s Bus Lines

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: September 10, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1203

Indexed as: Harvey v. Evan’s Bus Lines

APPEARANCES

Cheryl Harvey, Applicant

Self-represented

Evan’s Bus Lines, Respondent

Cheryl J. Cook, Counsel

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, services and facilities because of age, disability, gender identity and place of origin.

[2] In a Case Assessment Direction issued on July 17, 2014 the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held by telephone conference call to hear submissions from the parties about whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed. This Direction was made before the Application was served and the respondent was directed that it need not file a Response.

[3] A summary hearing was held by telephone conference call on September 9, 2015. Both parties participated.

[4] Rules 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.

19A.6 Where the Tribunal decides not to dismiss an Application following a summary hearing, it need not give reasons.

[5] After hearing the submissions of the parties I am not persuaded that this Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. This of course does not mean that it will succeed but having heard the submissions of the applicant, I find that there are allegations which if proved might establish a violation of the Code.

[6] As indicated above, Rule 19A.6 provides that where the Tribunal decides not to dismiss the Application it need not provide reasons, however in these circumstances the following comments are appropriate. It is fair to say that the Application is difficult to follow and includes a tangled narrative of things that appear to have nothing to do with the Code. However at the summary hearing, the applicant clarified what is a quite confusing Application. The applicant asserts that she is a person with a disability that makes sitting on a bus somewhat uncomfortable and that the respondent was aware of this and at least informally has accommodated her disability with courtesy seating at the front of the bus where the applicant is able to make herself more comfortable. The applicant alleges that on April 15, 2014, she gave up her usual seat to a man on crutches. The applicant alleges that the bus driver who was aware of her disability issues directed her to move towards the back of the bus and did so in a rude and disrespectful manner. The applicant further alleges that on the return trip that evening, the driver was verbally abusive and disclosed her circumstances to everyone in the bus in a dismissive way. The applicant also alleges that she complained to the respondent about this behaviour and received no response but after she advised them that she had filed this Application, she was told that the respondent would not provide her bus service after April 30, 2014. Although not identified as a ground in the Form 1 this latter allegation appears to be one of reprisal for having filed an Application. Having reviewed the Application these essential allegations can be found buried in the broader narrative of the applicant’s view of the bus driver’s general demeanour and treatment of her fellow passengers.

[7] The respondent argued that the Application on its face did not appear to raise any Code issues. Further the respondent disputed many of the factual assertions made by the applicant.

[8] As discussed above, the Application is difficult to follow and as drafted appeared to have little connection to the Code, however the essence of the Code dispute as set out in paragraph 6 can be found in the narrative and whether or not these allegations amount to a violation of the Code can only be determined on the basis of evidence.

[9] This Application will proceed to the next step in the Tribunal process. The respondent is directed to deliver and file its Response (Form 2) within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. If the respondent does not agree to mediation, the Tribunal will schedule a one day hearing in Ottawa.

[10] I am not seized.