HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hong Bing (Richard) Wang
Applicant
-and-
Superior Court of Justice
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Wang v. Superior Court of Justice
APPEARANCES
Hong Bing (Richard) Wang, Applicant
Self-represented
Superior Court of Justice, Respondent
Rina M. Li, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of gender identity, gender expression, family status and marital status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The applicant is involved in a rather complicated custodial issue because the children’s mother resides in Calgary Alberta. It appears that a number of legal proceedings where initiated in that province by the children’s mother which has resulted in a number of orders being issued. The applicant believed that he was disadvantaged from proceeding because he resides in Ontario. He therefore attempted to file motion materials in Ontario. The applicant alleges that he was provided with discriminatory service from the court staff because of the above-noted prohibited grounds when they refused to accept his various motion materials. He believes the Court staff refused his materials because they favour a mother’s rights over a father’s rights.
3It should be noted that the applicant ultimately did file a motion in Ontario on June 26, 2014 which was dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice. The endorsement issued by this Court reflects that the Calgary orders are binding on the parties and costs were awarded on the basis that the motion ought not to have been brought because it had no chance of success.
4On September 3, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction which directed on its own initiative that a summary hearing would be held to determine if all and/or part of the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent was advised that it did not need to file a Response.
5This summary hearing was held on December 17, 2014 and all of the parties participated during the conference call.
DECISION
6Details 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.
7Having considered the applicant’s submissions and Application I find that the applicant has not identified any evidence in his possession or that maybe reasonably be available to him to support his belief that he was denied services by the respondent for discriminatory purposes when he attempted to file his various motion materials. The applicant’s allegations are based solely on his subjective perception of his treatment by court staff. These are bald allegations and speculation that do not have any factual foundation. Further, I note that based on the materials filed with the Tribunal the applicant was involved in a complicated custody issue involving multiple jursidictions. In light of these materials there is no basis to infer that any prohibited ground was a factor in the applicant’s treatment.
ORDER
8Accordingly, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success and it is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of March, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair
CORRECTION
The decision released on March 12, 2015 spelled counsel for the respondent’s last name incorrectly as “Lee”. The error is corrected to: “Li”.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of March, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair