HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
André Thibault
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Thibault v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)
APPEARANCES
André Thibault, Applicant
Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Respondent
Daniel Mayer, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed May 27, 2015 alleging discrimination in employment and in goods, services and facilities because of ancestry, place of origin, disability and receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).
2By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed. The summary hearing took place by conference call on February 10, 2016. The parties attended and I heard submissions as to whether the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
3During the summary hearing, the applicant withdrew his allegations of discrimination in employment and discrimination based on the receipt of public assistance. This Decision deals with the allegations of discrimination in the provision of services because of ancestry, place of origin and disability.
Summary Hearing Process
4The 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 whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part because there is no reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.
5The Tribunal cannot address allegations of unfairness that are unrelated to the Code. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to claims of discrimination that are linked to the protections set out in the Code.
6The test that is applied at the summary hearing stage is whether an application has no reasonable prospect of success. At this stage, the Tribunal is not determining whether the applicant is telling the truth or assessing the impact of the treatment he experienced. The test of no reasonable prospect of success is determined by assuming the applicant’s version of events is true unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary.
7However, and significantly, accepting the facts alleged by the applicant does not include accepting the applicant’s assumptions about why he was treated unfairly. The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine if the applicant is able to point to any information that tends to support his belief that he has experienced discrimination under the Code. The question that the Tribunal must decide at a summary hearing is whether there is likely to be any evidence, or any evidence that may be reasonably available to the applicant to connect the unfair treatment allegedly experienced by the applicant with the Code’s protections.
8As the Tribunal indicated in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, for an application to continue in the Tribunal’s process following a summary hearing, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation, accusation and belief that an applicant could show a breach of the Code.
9Having set out the basic framework for determining whether an application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success, I now turn to the facts of this particular case.
Factual Background
10In December 2014 the applicant applied for benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”), a program that provides financial assistance to persons with disabilities. The applicant alleges that the respondent refused to make a decision on his eligibility for ODSP benefits because it appeared at the time of his application that he was a resident of the province of Quebec and receiving benefits under the Quebec Social Solidarity Program (“QSSP”).
11The applicant alleges that he was a resident of Ontario, without a fixed address, when he filed his application to the ODSP. He maintains that it is because of a clerical error in his file that the respondent failed to recognize that his place of residence was Ontario. The applicant also maintains that he continued to receive benefits from the QSSP because of the respondent`s refusal to process his ODSP file.
DECISION AND ANALYSIS
12Even if I accept the facts put forward by the applicant as true and provable, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success under the Code.
13As noted above, for an Application to advance to a full hearing on the merits, an applicant must be able to point to some evidence, beyond his own suspicions, that could make out a link to the Code. The Tribunal has repeatedly said that an applicant’s belief, no matter how strongly held, is not evidence upon which the Tribunal might find that discrimination has occurred. See for example Leong v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2014 HRTO 311.
Disability
14The applicant argues that the respondent did not accommodate his disability during the ODSP application process. However, on the face of the Application, and during the summary hearing the applicant could not explain when he requested or required accommodation to complete that process. I find that the allegation of discrimination based on the applicant’s disability has no reasonable prospect of success.
Ancestry and Place of Origin
15To be eligible for benefits under the ODSP, one has to be an Ontario resident. As the parties noted, the respondent refused to consider the applicant’s claim because the respondent had information indicating that the applicant was a resident of Quebec and receiving QSSP benefits at the time. To be eligible for benefits under the QSSP, one has to be a Quebec resident. I find that the respondent’s refusal to consider the applicant’s claim was based on his place of residence and not his ancestry or place of origin.
16The applicant argues that “place of residence” is included in, or equivalent to, the grounds of ancestry and place of origin. The ground “place of origin” has been equated with one’s country of origin. See for example Gardezi v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2010 BCHRT 262; and Siadat v. Ontario College of Teachers (2007) CanLII 253 (ON SCDC). However, place of residence, when considered on its own, is not equivalent to place of origin. Gardezi, above; Richardson v. College of New Caledonia, 2012 BCHRT 91; and Dobbin v. Canada (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), [2005] FC 1020.
17There is nothing to suggest that the applicant’s place of birth was a relevant factor in the consideration of his ODSP application. Rather, the parties agreed that the respondent’s refusal to consider the applicant’s claim for benefits was based solely on his last place of residence. Accordingly, these allegations have no reasonable prospect of success.
18I find that the applicant’s argument that place of residence is included or equivalent to the ground of ancestry also has no reasonable prospect of success. Jurisprudence has defined ancestry to mean family descent determined through the lineage of one’s parents through their parents, and so on. See for example Cousens v Canadian Nurses’ Association (1980), 1981 CanLII 4331 (ON HRT), 2 C.H.R.R. D/365; Ross v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2009 HRTO 34; and Michelin v. Johnson and Carter, 2014 HRTO 321. There is nothing to suggest that the applicant’s ancestry was a factor in the consideration of the ODSP claim.
The Civil Claim
19At the beginning of the summary hearing the respondent advised it had just been served with a Small Claims Court claim made by the applicant. The parties did not provide any submissions about the impact of the claim on this proceeding. Given my decision to dismiss the Application, I will not consider whether the Application is barred by s. 34(11).
Order
20For the above reasons, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of February, 2016.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair