Jeff Seberras v. Town of Collingwood, 2016 HRTO 1626

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeff Seberras Applicant

-and-

Town of Collingwood Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: December 20, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1626

Indexed as: Seberras v. Collingwood (Town)

APPEARANCES

Jeff Seberras, Applicant Self-represented

Town of Collingwood, Respondent Carol VandenHoek, Counsel, and Alex Ciccone, Student-at-Law

1This is an Application filed on April 28, 2015 alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2This Application relates to a deck and hot tub being installed in the applicant’s backyard at his home in Collingwood. The applicant is a person with a disability who believed at the time he filed the Application that there were certain requirements in relation to the Town’s by-laws that caused him to be adversely affected because of his disability. The applicant also alleges that he experienced discriminatory treatment by Town officials due to being a person with a disability.

3By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated June 17, 2016, the Tribunal advised the parties that it had decided to hold a summary hearing to determine whether the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The summary hearing was scheduled to proceed by teleconference on July 14, 2016. At that time, I heard oral submissions from the parties. I also have considered all material filed with the Tribunal for the purpose of the summary hearing.

4The medical evidence submitted by the applicant indicates that he requires an area adjacent to his hot tub which is large enough for him to immediately lay down in the case of a medical emergency. The applicant had an existing deck at the rear of his house which extended for five feet. There is then a rise of one foot and eleven inches to the deck the applicant had constructed surrounding the hot tub, and a further two feet of deck extending to the actual side of the hot tub. The difficulty the applicant believed to be created by the Town by-laws was that he was required to install a railing adjacent to the hot tub which would prevent him from having immediate access to his deck in the event of a medical emergency.

5No such railing requirement appears in the Town bylaws. The Building Code does require railings to be installed, but only when there is a change in elevation of at least 23 and 5/8 inches. As the change in elevation between the existing deck at the rear of the applicant’s home and the new deck surrounding the hot tub is only 23 inches, there is no railing requirement. At the summary hearing, I confirmed with the applicant that as there is in fact no railing requirement on that side of the hot tub, there is nothing that would prevent him from having immediate access to the deck in the event of a medical emergency while he was in the hot tub. As a result, there is nothing that interferes with the applicant’s disability-related needs based on the material before me, such that this aspect of the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

6The other aspect of the Application relates to how the applicant alleges he was treated by Town officials as a person with a disability. The problem with this allegation is that the Application indicates that the applicant disclosed to the Mayor that he was a person with a disability on April 28, 2015, the day the Application was filed. In his oral submissions at the summary hearing, the applicant stated that he also had left a voicemail message with the Mayor’s office sometime between April 9 and April 23, 2015 in which he had identified himself as a person with a disability. On the basis of the material before me, the only things that happened after this voicemail message were: a voicemail message left for the applicant by the Town’s chief building official advising him that he needed either to take down the new deck that he had constructed or apply for a variance; and a letter to the applicant from the chief building official dated April 27, 2015 advising him that the new deck he had constructed did not conform with Town by-laws, and setting out the options he had, including what he needed to do in order to bring the new deck into compliance.

7In my view, there is nothing in these communications from the chief building official that support a claim of discriminatory treatment. They merely advise the applicant of his options in terms of ensuring compliance with the Town’s by-laws. As a result, I find that the applicant’s allegation of discriminatory treatment by Town officials as a person with a disability also has no reasonable prospect of success.

ORDER

8For all of the foregoing reasons, the Application is dismissed in its entirety as having no reasonable prospect of success.