Vincent Sinclair v. Corporation of the City of London and Laurie Walton, 2016 HRTO 1277

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Vincent Sinclair

Applicant

-and-

Corporation of the City of London and Laurie Walton

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: September 29, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1277

Indexed As: Sinclair v. London (City)

APPEARANCES

Vincent Sinclair, Applicant

Self-represented

Corporation of the City of London and Laurie Walton, Respondents

Nicole Hall, Counsel

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to the provision of goods and services because of race and colour.

2In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued on March 22, 2016, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed in whole or in part because there appears to be no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

3A summary hearing was held by telephone conference call on July 18, 2016. All parties participated.

4In his Application the applicant alleged that he was denied service by counter staff at a courthouse administered by the respondent City. The applicant has no direct evidence to support his claims but will ask the Tribunal to draw an inference that a factor in the alleged denial of service was his race and colour. The applicant will rely on the fact that the service window had been open but was closed during his visit. He will also rely on what he alleges is evidence tampering by the respondent. He will also rely on a factual dispute about what it was that he was seeking from counter staff. This is not disclosed in the Application, but when the respondents asserted at the summary hearing that the applicant was seeking material related to an unexecuted warrant, the applicant stated that this was not the case, that he was merely looking for a trial date in another person’s proceeding.

5The applicant also made a number of other allegations about collusion between the Tribunal and others. The applicant made much of what are clearly typographical errors in the March 22, 2016 CAD, but which he believed were intentional and malicious and were intended to mislead him. He also made submissions about the description of this event as a preliminary hearing and a summary hearing. Relying on what I understood to be references to criminal and civil proceedings, the applicant seemed to suggest that the use of these terms interchangeably was improper.

6The respondents have not yet been called upon to file a Response to the Application. At the summary hearing the respondents submitted that the applicant had not been denied service but that ultimately the information he was seeking could not be released. As indicated, the applicant disputes this assertion.

7The Application cannot be dismissed at this preliminary stage. The Tribunal’s Rules provide that when it declines to dismiss an Application at the summary hearing stage it need not give reasons. Despite the Rule, the following comments are appropriate. While I am unable to conclude that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success, that does not mean that it has a reasonable prospect of success. The assertion of the respondents would be a complete answer to the applicant’s allegation, but as indicated the applicant disputes the assertion. There is much about this case that suggests that the applicant’s claims are unfounded, but that is not the test at this preliminary stage. In particular, I note the completely baseless suggestion that there has been collusion between the respondents and the Tribunal. However, the question becomes whether in all of the circumstances described by the applicant, which for purposes of the summary hearing are taken as being capable of proof, there is no reasonable prospect that the inference might be drawn that a factor in the interaction between counter staff and the applicant was informed by his race and colour. For these reasons the Application should proceed to the next stage of the Tribunal’s proceeding.

8The respondents shall file a Response within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. If the respondents agree to medication the case will be scheduled for mediation. If they do not the Tribunal will schedule a one-day hearing.