Begley v. Toronto (City), 2015 HRTO 510

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dermot Begley

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: April 22, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 510

Indexed as: Begley v. Toronto (City)

APPEARANCES

Dermot Begley, Applicant

Self-represented

City of Toronto, Respondent

Justin Basinger, Counsel

1This Application was filed on March 21, 2014 and alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, citizenship, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, record of offences and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated September 9, 2014, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed. The respondent was not required to file a Response.

3Rules 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.

4Details 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.

5The Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment on the grounds set out in the Code. To succeed in an Application, an applicant must be able to prove discrimination on the basis of a Code ground on a balance of probabilities. To show discrimination, an applicant must prove a link between a respondent’s alleged actions and a Code ground. Having reviewed the Application, this Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing because it was unclear whether the applicant would be able to prove a link to the grounds alleged.

6The Application as originally filed did not provide details regarding any alleged acts of discrimination by the respondent. Instead, the applicant simply recited the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and made a general statement that all of his rights had been infringed by the Toronto Police Service, the Toronto Mayor’s Office and the Bank of Montreal. As the Bank of Montreal is a federal undertaking and falls within federal jurisdiction, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider any allegations against that entity.

7The Tribunal made several attempts to elicit from the applicant details as to the alleged acts of discrimination upon which his Application is based. Ultimately, on August 8, 2014, the applicant filed what he described as a complete Application. As best that I can discern, the applicant’s allegations as set out in this revised Application largely emanate from the applicant’s belief that wrongs have been and continue to be done to him by the City of Toronto and the Toronto Police Service through the use of time travel and various methods to control his mind and thoughts.

8The summary hearing was held by conference call on January 29, 2015, and I heard oral submissions from the parties. I noted for the applicant that the difficulty with his Application before this Tribunal was his failure, even in his revised Application, to specify what it is that he alleges that the City of Toronto, the Toronto Police Service or the Mayor’s Office have done that amounts to an alleged violation of his rights under the Code, including details as to what is alleged to have happened, when this is alleged to have happened, who is alleged to have been involved, and how this connects to any ground of discrimination protected under the Code. While the Application at various points states that the applicant would “explain further at a hearing”, I advised the applicant that this teleconference hearing was his opportunity to provide the specifics and details of his allegations against the respondent and explain how his allegations relate to the Code.

9The applicant spent much of his time during his submissions focusing on the issue of time travel, but did not provide many further specifics or details of his allegations than had been stated in the revised Application.

10The applicant himself recognized that his allegations probably cannot be proven, and that he would require a team of experts in order to prove that time travel exists.

11The respondent advised that it had looked into its records and had determined that the applicant had briefly been employed by the City in 2003 as a part-time employee, and has not been employed by the City of Toronto or the Toronto Police Service since that time. The respondent also advised that the applicant had applied for various jobs at the City of Toronto, with his last application having been in November 2011. The respondent takes the position that the applicant has not identified any specific allegations against the City of Toronto or the Toronto Police Service that relate to the social area of employment, which is the social area claimed in the Application, and that he has no reasonable prospect of success in establishing a link between any of his allegations and a ground of discrimination protected under the Code.

12I agree with the respondent’s submissions. The applicant’s alleged employment relationships with the City are fanciful and appear to be based upon delusional thinking. He has not identified any specific event as the basis for his allegations of discrimination in respect of employment nor has he provided any basis to connect or link his allegations to any ground of discrimination protected under the Code. I agree with the applicant’s own assessment that his allegations are not capable of proof.

ORDER

13For these reasons, the Application is dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.