Sherazee v. Durham Children’s Aid Society, 2015 HRTO 951

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sayeda Sherazee

Applicant

-and-

Durham Children’s Aid Society and York Police Services Board

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 17, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 951

Indexed as: Sherazee v. Durham Children’s Aid Society

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sayeda Sherazee, Applicant

Self-represented

York Regional Police Services Board, Respondent Durham Children’s Aid Society, Resondent

Stephen Maio, Counsel Vincent Panetta, 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”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of age, colour, creed, family status, marital status, place of origin and race.

2In a Case Assessment Direction issued on April 29, 2015 the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to hear submissions on whether or not this Application should be dismissed in whole or in part because it has no reasonable prospect of success..

3The applicant has filed a Request for interim Remedy. The respondents have both responded to the Request.

4The 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.

5In her Request the applicants seeks an Order requiring the respondents to pay to her $17,000.

6The 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.

7The 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.

8In 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.

9The 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.

10The applicant makes no meaningful submissions in support of the Request. The applicant articulates a number of ways in which she would put the monies to use including supporting an “upper class” lifestyle and travel but makes no submissions that address the issues identified in the Tribunal’s Rule 23.2.

11I am 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. I note as did the respondents that the Tribunal has already determined that this case will be the subject to a summary hearing because it appears that the applicant may not be able to prove discrimination. This appears to be the opposite of a case that appears to have merit. Moreover the interim remedy sought appears to be related to supporting a standard of living desired by the applicant. This is not a remedial purpose of the Code. In short there is no basis to the Request and it is denied.

12I am not seized.