Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
C.B. by her Litigation Guardian D.B.
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: C.B. v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)
APPEARANCES
C.B. by her Litigation Guardian D.B., Applicant
Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, Respondent
Mimi Singh, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant filed an Application on June 29, 2015 pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability.
2By Case Assessment Direction dated April 7, 2016 (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to address the following two preliminary issues:
Should the Application be dismissed pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure because there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed?
Should the Application be dismissed pursuant to s. 34 of the Code because of delay?
3The Tribunal held a summary hearing on October 24, 2016.
Background
4The applicant has had a disability since birth. On October 8, 2014, the applicant’s mother, while applying for the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”), found out about the Special Services At Home (“SSAH”) program and was told that the applicant may be eligible for that program.
5In January 2015, the applicant’s parents contacted the Ministry of Community and Social Services (“Ministry”) and were told that the applicant was eligible for SSAH support until she turned 18. The applicant turned 18 on January 1, 2015. She was awarded benefits from January 2, 2015 to January 31, 2015 to the amount of $240.00. However, the applicant was denied retroactive benefits because such benefits are not available under the SSAH program.
6The SSAH program is administered by the Ministry under the authority of section 7(1)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (“the Act”), which authorizes the Minister to “provide services” and “make payments for those services”. Pursuant to s. 3(1) of the Act, services include “a child development service, a child treatment service, a child welfare service, a community support service, or a youth justice service”. The SSAH program is one of a range of community supports available to strengthen the abilities of individuals and families to develop their optimal potential, reduce the need for intensive settings or intrusive social services in the future, and reinforce personal dignity and independence.
Analysis and Decision
7The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) as well as the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests. The purpose of a summary hearing is to consider, early in the proceeding, whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part because there is no reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.
8The Tribunal has consistently held that it does not have the jurisdiction to address general allegations of unfairness unrelated to the Code. Many experiences of unfairness, which are not defined as discrimination in the legal sense, can leave a person with significant financial and emotional damage. However, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to claims of discrimination under the Code. Discrimination under the Code generally involves an allegation of adverse treatment because of one or more of the grounds listed in the Code. Adverse treatment is not discriminatory in the legal sense unless there is evidence or proof that one or more of the personal characteristics listed in the Code were a factor in the treatment the applicant experienced.
9The applicant alleges that she was unfairly treated based on her disability because she was denied retroactive benefits under the SSAH and because the respondent did not inform her family early on of her right to apply for SSAH funding. She states that she has lived in Ontario all her life and the benefits could have been used to support her education and to enhance her contribution to society.
10Even if I accept the applicant’s allegations as true, there is no reasonable prospect that she will be able to advance evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she was adversely treated because of a ground of discrimination under the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h