Ferron v. The Regional Municipality of Peel, 2015 HRTO 795

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wayne Ferron

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Peel and the Governing Council of the Salvation Army In Canada

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: June 15, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 795

Indexed as: Ferron v. The Regional Municipality of Peel

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Wayne Ferron, Applicant

Self-represented

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”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of reprisal.

2In his Application the applicant alleges that he was denied services at the respondents’ emergency shelter as retaliation for having claimed his human rights in on-going civil action against the respondents regarding earlier events.

3In Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 1544, dated Sept. 13, 2013, this Application was deferred pending the conclusion of another legal proceeding. The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding (“Request”) seeking the reactivation of the Application. The respondents oppose the Request because it was untimely. The respondents also took the position that the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code.

4In a Case Assessment Direction issued on May 13, 2015 the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be held by telephone conference call to hear submissions about the applicant’s Request and the respondent’s objections to it.

5On May 21, 2015 the applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy (Form 16). It appears that the Request was delivered to the respondents and a number of other individuals but the Tribunal advised the respondents they need not respond unless directed to do so. Subsequently the applicant filed a number of “amended” Requests but it is not how these are in substance any different than the one filed on May 21, 2015.

6The Request is denied. The Tribunal Rule 23 provides as follows:

23.1 An Applicant may request that the Tribunal order an interim remedy in an Application. A Request for an Interim Remedy must be made in Form 16. If the Request is made at the same time the Application is filed, it need not be delivered to the other parties. If it is made at a later stage, it must be delivered to the other parties and filed with the Tribunal.

23.2 The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

a) the Application appears to have merit;

b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,

c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

23.3 A Request for an Interim Remedy must include:

a) a detailed description of the order sought;

b) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the Applicant relies; and,

c) submissions with respect to the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an interim remedy would be just and appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the Rule 23.2.

23.4 The other parties must file their response, if any, in Form 17, Response to Request for Interim Remedy, not later than seven days after the Form 16 was delivered. The Form 17 must be delivered to the other parties and any affected persons identified in the Application and filed with the Tribunal not later than seven days after the request was sent or as the Tribunal directs.

23.5 A Response to Request for Interim Remedy must be delivered to all other parties and filed with the Tribunal and must include:

a) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the Respondent relies; and,

b) submissions with respect to the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an interim remedy would not be just and appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the Rule 23.2.

7The requested order(s) are reproduced here:

I require an INTERIM ORDER involving time, money, or authority to obtain and file the following evidence to know my case and assist this honourable court within the spirit of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS;

0to travel to BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE, and serve the registrar of the same court with a REQUISITION for two certified copy of the final order for the civil matter CV-12-71600(need return bus fare and cost of certified copies), since the same court has failed to notify Applicant of the court order in question, the same court has failed to disclosed to the Applicant the court order in question, and the same court has refused to send the Applicant the court order in question.

1to travel to TORONTO FAMILY COURTHOUSE, and serve the registrar of the same court with a REQUISITION for two certified copy of the final order GRANTING FULL CUSTODY FOR MY BELOVED DAUGHTER to Wayne Ferron (Applicant), whom have full custody of;

2to allow Applicant to EXAMINE HRTO file HRTO 12-12585-I and make relevant photo copies without cost;

3to direct HRTO to honour and complete the Applicant’s FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUISITION which is in a state of deemed refusal, without cost;

4to direct REGION OF PEEL and the SALVATION ARMY to disclose to my person all my personal information collected at the PEEL REGIONAL HOMELESS SHELTER so I may know the matter to the full extent and be able to answer the honourable court’s question;

5to direct REGION OF PEEL and the SALVATION ARMY to return the Applicant’s monies in the form of a personal check and a CANADA POST MONEY ORDER, as payment for search fees for services never rendered or responded to,in more than one request for my personal information collected at the PEEL REGIONAL HOMELESS SHELTER;

6to direct for an extension of time to a future date for a IN PERSON HEARING OF THE MATTER(applicant does not have access to a phone) which the honourable court finds just and appropriate;

7to give an interim order for monies($1 088.50) to obtain/file all medical evidence relevant to matter from CLINICS, HOSPITALS, and PHARMACY. In addition to cost of travel, document handling, and the cost, the court-registrar charge to obtain certified documents;

8money to obtain/file all HOMELESS INFORMATION from the city of toronto, relevant to the matter,

9money to summon witnesses by registered government mail to assist this honourable court.

ESTIMATE OF COST:

TORONTO FAMILY COURT $4.00/ PAGE

BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE $4.00/ PAGE

BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL $150.00 records search fee

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL $150.00 records search fee

HUMBER RIVER HOSPITAL $150.00 records search fee

ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL $150.00 records search fee

MEADOW VILLE WALK IN CLINIC $150.00 records search fee

SHOPPERS DRUG MART/PHARMACY$150.00 records search fee

Brampton bus fare $3.75/bus ride x 2

Mississauga bus fare ($3.25/bus ride x 2)x2

Toronto bus fare ($3.00/bus ride x 2)x4

CANADA POST REGISTERED MAIL ($12.00) x 12

8The granting of an interim remedy is an extraordinary step. It involves requiring the respondents to take certain actions prior to a hearing on the merits of the Application and before any violation of the Code has been proven.

9The conditions for awarding an interim remedy are set out as follows in Rule 23.2 reproduced again for convenience:

The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

a) the Application appears to have merit;

b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,

c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

10In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, at para. 23, the Tribunal held that the fundamental consideration in determining whether to award an interim remedy is:

whether an interim remedy is necessary to facilitate and ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should a violation of the Code be found.

11The Tribunal in TA v. Montclair, above, also noted that an applicant seeking an interim remedy will have a significant onus to meet to demonstrate that the Request meets the three elements in Rule 23.2 and is necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code. See also Kwan v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2009 HRTO 621.

12The applicant makes no meaningful submissions in support of the Request. There are repeated references to other litigation in which he has been involved over the last several years as well as the Order declaring him a vexatious litigant in the Ontario Court of Justice. However it is impossible to understand from the applicant’s submissions why be believes that the interim order(s) he has requested are just, appropriate and necessary to further the remedial purposes of the Code. I also note that the applicant has not filed declarations made by a person(s) familiar with the facts as required by the Tribunal’s Rules.

13As indicated previously this Application was deferred pending the conclusion of one or more other legal proceedings and has not yet been reactivated. The Tribunal has normally not considered requests made by parties while an Application is deferred. At this stage it has not yet been determined whether or not this Application will proceed to consider any kind of remedy for an alleged breach of the Code and as such it would not be appropriate to grant the applicant’s Request.

14If I am incorrect in that conclusion I am also not satisfied that the applicant has met the significant onus of establishing that his Request for Interim Remedy meets the criteria in Rule 23.2 and is necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code. The substance of the Request does not relate to any proposed remedy for an alleged violation of the Code by the identified respondents. Instead it appears that the Request is for the production from the respondents which are premature; requests for production by third parties with no connection to the allegations in the Application; and requests for funds to support the production of documents from a number of third parties who have no apparent connection to the Application. None of these requests are appropriate as the substance of an interim remedy and for this reason as well I would dismiss the Request.

OTHER MATTERS

15Included in the Request is what appears to be a request that the preliminary hearing directed in the CAD above be an in person hearing. The stated reason for the request is that the applicant is homeless and does not have a telephone. The hearing will be held by telephone conference call. In the circumstances the Tribunal will provide the applicant with a room with a telephone at its hearing centre in Toronto.