Melo v. Barrie Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 416

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Melo

Applicant

-and-

Barrie Police Services Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: March 30, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 416

Indexed as: Melo v. Barrie Police Services Board

APPEARANCES

Paul Melo, Applicant

Self-represented

Barrie Police Services Board, Respondent

Jessica DiFederico, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The allegations in the current Application relate primarily to the events in 2011 and the decision by the respondent police services (the “police”) at that time to lay charges against the applicant and not to lay charges against the applicant’s ex-girlfriend.

3Those allegations were also set out in an earlier application. That application was dismissed in Decision 2013 HRTO 47 because the allegations related to events that happened more than one year before the application was filed.

4Obviously, those allegations occurred more than one year before the current Application which was filed on January 24, 2014. As well, they have already been dismissed by the Tribunal. For these reasons, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the current Application as it relates to the applicant’s complaints about the events in 2011.

5The current Application also alleges that the applicant returned to the police on January 24, 2013 with new evidence, and in February 2013, he was told that charges would still not be filed against his ex-girlfriend. He alleges that this decision was discriminatory. He claims that he was the victim of domestic assault at the hands of his ex-girlfriend and that the police would not lay charges against his ex-girlfriend because he is a male. According to the applicant, had he been a woman subjected to the assault he experienced, charges would have been laid against the perpetrator of the assault.

6In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated July 7, 2014 the Tribunal noted that the allegations about the events in 2013 are timely as they occurred within one year of January 24, 2014 when the current Application was filed. The Tribunal indicated, however, that it was not clear how the applicant could prove that the decision to still not lay charges against the applicant’s ex-girlfriend in 2013 was discriminatory and contrary to the Code. In the CAD, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and directed the applicant to provide argument about why the current Application should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success and to point to the evidence on which the applicant would prove a link between the respondent’s decision in 2013 not to lay charges against the applicant’s ex-girlfriend and the applicant’s sex.

7A summary hearing was held by telephone on January 6, 2015, during which I heard submissions from the applicant and from counsel for the respondent.

8For the following reasons the Application is dismissed.

analysis

9The applicant complains that the police did not press charges against his ex-girlfriend in 2013 even though she physically assaulted him because he is a man. He alleges that had he been a woman complaining about being assaulted by a man, charges would have been laid. The applicant alleges that this is discrimination based on his male sex (gender).

10The respondent denies the allegations of discrimination and states that the applicant’s gender was not a factor in the decision in 2013 not to lay assault charges against the applicant’s ex-girlfriend. The respondent states that charges were not laid because of lack of evidence and because the applicant lacked credibility.

11At the hearing, the onus was on the applicant to point to any evidence on which he would rely to prove a link between the applicant’s sex and the police’s decision not to press charges against his ex-girlfriend. The applicant, however, failed to provide any particulars or identify any evidence that would link the applicant’s sex to the police’s decision in 2013 not to lay charges against his ex-girlfriend.

12At the hearing he stated that “I feel that had I been a female” charges would have been laid. He indicated that he “believes” his gender was a factor in the police’s decision to still not lay charges in 2013. He stated that “I don’t understand why the police has a bias against me.”

13In my view, the applicant’s claim that his sex was the reason for the police not pressing charges against his ex-girlfriend in 2013 is without any evidentiary basis and is mere speculation. I am not satisfied that there is any reasonable prospect of connecting the police’s decision in 2013 to not lay charges against the applicant’s ex-girlfriend and his gender. For this reason the Application is dismissed.