Ivan Marich v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 640

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ivan Marich Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: May 15, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 640 Indexed as: Marich v. Toronto Police Services Board

APPEARANCES

Ivan Marich, Applicant Self-represented

Toronto Police Services Board, Respondent Robert Baldwin, Counsel

Introduction

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”). The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him in the provision of services on the basis of age.

2Following a review of the Application, a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) was issued on November 3, 2014, directing that a summary hearing take place. The summary hearing was held by conference call and all parties participated.

DECISION

3For the reasons that follow, I find that this matter has no reasonable prospect of success and it is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Summary Hearings

4In a summary hearing, the issue is whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or a part thereof will succeed. It is outlined in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure:

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.

5In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 8 and 9, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:

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.

Application to the Facts

6In his Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent illegally seized his home and locked him out of his house and that they did this due to his age. He alleges that a property organization is targeting seniors who own property and that they use a Division of the Toronto Police as their agents, for financial gain.

7He also alleges that he had been living at the house in question for 30 years with his common law partner, who died in December 2011. He alleges that he went out for the day on September 11, 2013 and that when he returned home at 5 PM, he saw that his garden gate had been smashed and his front door had been damaged, as if someone had tried to break into his property. He alleges that when he tried his key in the door, it would not unlock the door. He alleges that he called 911 and that he was advised that the police had a court order to lock him out of the house and install a new lock.

8He alleges that when his common law partner died, she left “conditions” for her granddaughter, whom he refers to as a “conditional trustee”, to leave him in charge of the property until it is sold and then to give him “a share”. He also alleges that his common law partner left money with her granddaughter to pay bills associated with the property until it is sold. He alleges that his common law partner wanted her money to go to a church and to friends out of the country and to her daughter. He alleges that the granddaughter “changed the rules” and falsified information to the Landlord and Tenant Board saying that he was a tenant, not a common law partner.

9He alleges that though his deceased common law partner’s family claims he was a tenant, he paid the bills which arrived in the name of the common law partner. He asserts “this needs to go to family court”. He alleges that the granddaughter provided false information and documents which “resulted in [him] being forced out of [his] home.” He alleges that as a result of the actions of his deceased common law partner’s actions, he has been made homeless.

10At the summary hearing, the applicant alleged that when he called 911 on September 11, 2013, he was advised that the police had a court order to lock him out and to install their own lock. He stated that he called a locksmith to come back to open the door, but that no one arrived. He alleged that while he was waiting for the locksmith, a sliver vehicle arrived, the driver and passenger got out and one of them said if the applicant tried to get in to “take him down”. He alleged that he could see that one had a gun and was staring directly at him. He alleged that he then left, but that he went to the police Division the next day and told them what happened. He alleged that he made a number of inquiries, but that no one helped him.

11Also at the summary hearing, he alleged that in 2014 he asked the police to help him get his belongings from the property, but that they advised him that the person with the key was away all week. He alleged he attempted to follow up but was never able to get through to the individual and he felt the police were just trying to annoy him and waste his time.

12At the summary hearing, the applicant also alleged that he has a letter from an independent investigation of the police’s actions which says that two officers “acted on behalf of” a Landlord and Tenant Board order. He alleged that they used false material to break into his home and that they think he is “too old to match their game”. Finally, he alleged that before all of this happened, he went to the police to show them “threatening papers that [he] would be thrown out by the cops” and they said it has nothing to do with them.

13The respondents deny having discriminated against the applicant. They submit that there are no specific allegations in the Application that they have acted in a discriminatory manner. They assert that they were informed by the legal representative of the owner of the house that the applicant was being evicted pursuant to a lawful Notice of Eviction and that members of the Toronto Police Service did attend at the house when the locks were being replaced, but that they did not authorize or participate in that action.

14The power of the Tribunal is limited to dealing with applications alleging a violation of the Code, which prohibits discrimination on specific grounds. It does not have the power to deal with all claims of unfairness or all disputes between parties.

15The CAD issued in this matter indicated clearly that at the summary hearing, the “applicant shall…point to the evidence on which the applicant will prove a link between the respondent’s actions and the grounds cited.” In the course of the summary hearing, the applicant was given the opportunity to provide this information but was unable to do so.

16The applicant has made an allegation of discriminatory treatment by the respondent, though he has also indicated that it was the granddaughter of his deceased common law partner who caused him to be put out of the home where he had been living. However, even if he were able to establish that the police did change the lock to the house where he lived, he has not provided an explanation of how he will be able to connect the alleged actions of the respondent to the Code. Though he asserts that the police think he is “too old to match their game”, this is a bald assertion of discrimination without any indication of what evidence he would rely upon to establish this allegation.

17At the summary hearing, the applicant also asserted that the police were unhelpful to him when he went to them before the locks were changed. He also asserted that they were unhelpful to him when he told them about the people in the silver car and when he tried to retrieve his property from inside the house, but he has not provided an explanation of how he will be able to connect the respondent’s alleged actions to the Code.

18In summing up, he has not indicated what evidence he has or that may be reasonably available to him that would establish his allegation that he was evicted from his home due to his age, or that the police changed locks to his home because of his age, or that the police have not been helpful to him because of his age. In order to warrant proceeding to a full hearing of the merits some evidence must exist, which goes beyond the applicant’s feeling or belief that a prohibited ground of discrimination played a role in what he experienced.

19The applicant must be able to show that the respondent has treated him differently as compared to others based on his age for his Application to be successful. He has not, however, been able to identify any evidence which would, if proven, establish a connection between the respondent’s alleged actions and his age. Without such evidence, his Application cannot succeed.

20I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed and it is dismissed.