Sprague v. RioCan Real Estate Income Trust, 2016 HRTO 1104

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Sprague

Applicant

-and-

RioCan Real Estate Income Trust

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: August 19, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1104

Indexed as: Sprague v. Rioan Real Estate Income Trust

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andrew Sprague, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant has requested a reconsideration of Decision 2016 HRTO 866 (“the Decision”), dated June 29, 2016. The Decision dismissed an Application brought by the applicant as having no reasonable prospect of success following a summary hearing.

2The Application alleged that a sign on the door of a building owned by the respondent indicated that dogs were not permitted in the building and that the sign expressed an intention to discriminate against the applicant who has a service dog. The Application alleged that the sign was contrary to section 13 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

3Section 13(1) reads as follows:

Announced intention to discriminate

13. (1) A right under Part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays before the public or causes the publication or display before the public of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other similar representation that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under Part I or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right under Part I.

4According to the Decision, during the summary hearing, the applicant explained that he had been to the building with his service animal on several occasions. On one occasion, he noticed a sign which included a symbol of a dog with diagonal line through it, indicating that dogs were not permitted.

5Relying on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Entrop v. Imperial Oil, 2000 CanLII 16800, the Decision found that section 13 requires that, on an objective standard, a respondent has to have made an “announced intention to discriminate” by publishing a notice, symbol, etc. that indicates its intention to infringe a right under the Code. The Decision found that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant would be able to establish that the symbol on the door expressed an intention to discriminate contrary to the Code. The Decision found that the symbol indicated that there was a prohibition against dogs entering the building but did not indicate that a service dog would be denied entry and/or not be accommodated. The Tribunal did not agree with the applicant’s argument that the sign was equivalent to a sign prohibiting entrance to “Blacks” and “Jews”.

6Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.

7Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

26.5. A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that

(a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

(b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

(c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

(d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

8The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration states in part:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

The Request to Reconsider

9The Request to Reconsider (“the Request”) indicates that the applicant is seeking reconsideration of the Decision in part because the Divisional Court has stated that it expects an appellant to exhaust all review or appeal options before filing an application for judicial review.

10For the most part, the Request reiterates the same arguments that were canvassed during the summary hearing and dealt with in the Decision.

11The Request indicates that in the applicant’s opinion, section 13 of the Code does not require an intention to discriminate on the part of the person who installed the no dogs symbol. In his view, the sign was “on a standalone basis, an intention to discriminate”.

12The Request reiterates the applicant’s argument that since service dogs are dogs, a sign indicating no dogs allowed indicates an intention to deny entry to service dogs.

13The Request goes on to relate in some detail a visit to a farm in Toronto that is open to the public. The farm had several signs posted stating that dogs were not allowed in the farm. According to the Request, the applicant was told that he could not attend the farm with his service dog. The Request goes on to relate the applicant's subsequent interactions with staff at the City of Toronto concerning this issue. According to the applicant, the City agreed with the applicant that the applicant had been inappropriately denied access to the farm because he had a service dog.

14The relevance of the applicant's experience at the farm is not explained in the Request.

15With the exception of the applicant’s account of his visit to the farm, the Request is entirely a reiteration of the arguments that were heard by the Tribunal at the time of the summary hearing, and dealt with in the Decision. The applicant has not identified any of the factors set out in Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure that would warrant a reconsideration of the Decision.

Decision

16The Request for Reconsideration is denied.