Robert Strutt v. Robert Wong-Pack, 2015 HRTO 122

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Strutt

Applicant

-and-

Robert Wong-Pack

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: January 27, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 122
Indexed as: Strutt v. Wong-Pack

APPEARANCES

Robert Strutt, Applicant
Self-represented

Robert Wong-Pack, Respondent
Nevena Urosevic, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). It is being dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The reasons below explain why.

2The applicant is disabled and depends on the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) for his income. The respondent is a veterinarian. The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against because the respondent refused to allow him to pay for the treatment of his sick cat in instalments. The applicant could not afford to pay for the treatment in a single payment. The cat was not treated and it died.

3The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing on January 19, 2015 to determine if the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. Prior to the hearing, in a letter dated January 12, 2015 but only received by the Tribunal on January 15, 2015, the applicant requested an adjournment. The reason for this is that he wanted to retain counsel. He had earlier retained the services of a paralegal, but the paralegal terminated the retainer on November 19, 2014. The request was denied because the Tribunal only grants adjournments in exceptional circumstances. In this case, given the timing of the termination of the retainer, the applicant had ample time to retain new counsel who would be available to proceed on the date of the summary hearing. Instead he requested an adjournment a few days before the hearing. The applicant’s request did not meet the criterion of exceptional circumstances and the applicant was informed that the summary hearing would proceed as scheduled.

4In the summary hearing the applicant argued that he was discriminated against because of disability in that he was unable to pay for the treatment of his cat in the manner requested by the respondent due to his dependence on ODSP.

5To establish discrimination, an applicant must be able to show that they are a member of a Code-protected group, that they were subject to adverse treatment and that the Code-protected ground in question was a factor in that adverse treatment (see Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 (“Peel”) at para. 126).

6There is no dispute that the applicant is disabled and that he suffered adverse treatment in that he was denied the opportunity to pay for his cat’s treatment in instalments. However, the applicant has no reasonable prospect of showing that his disability was a factor in the respondent’s decision to refuse to let him pay in instalments.

7The fact that the applicant could not pay the respondent’s bill in a single payment flows from his economic circumstances and not from his disability. The applicant cannot point to any evidence in his possession or that may be reasonably available to him that would show that it is his disability, as opposed to his economic circumstances, that precluded him from paying the respondent’s bill in a single payment.

8While the applicant’s disability may be the cause of his limited economic circumstances, and may in turn force him to be dependent upon ODSP, the applicant cannot extend that causal chain to support a claim that the respondent considered his disability as a factor in refusing to allow him to pay in instalments. This is because there are disabled people who have the economic means to pay an expensive veterinarian bill in a single payment and there are non-disabled people who would also find themselves in the applicant’s position of only being able to afford the bill through payment by instalment. The applicant’s receipt of ODSP benefits may well have been a factor in the respondent’s decision, but that would not support a claim of discrimination because receipt of public assistance is not a prohibited ground under the Code with respect to the provision of services.

9As the applicant cannot establish a link between a Code ground and the respondent’s conduct, his Application cannot succeed.

order

10The Application is dismissed as it has no reasonable prospect of success.