Symonik v. Bloke 4 Restaurant & Night Club, 2016 HRTO 288

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Symonik Applicant

-and-

Bloke 4 Restaurant & Night Club Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Sharon Symonik Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Sharon Symonik Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Genevieve Debane Date: March 4, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 288 Indexed as: Symonik v. Bloke 4 Restaurant & Night Club

Background

1The applicant filed three separate Applications against the named respondents. The Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 1163 which dismissed the Application as against the Child and Family Services Review Board. The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing that a joint preliminary hearing would be held to determine whether the Applications should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

2Only the applicant and a representative on behalf of Bloke 4 Restaurant & Night Club were present at the summary hearing.

3Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 8 and 9:

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

The allegations against Bloke 4 Restaurant & Night Club

4The applicant explained that she is dissatisfied with the manner in which she is being treated by Bloke 4 Restaurant & Night Club (“the respondent restaurant”), alleging discrimination with respect to disability and marital status. She talked about her sister who also goes to the club with her boyfriends and that they are not nice to her sometimes. The Application as against the respondent restaurant contains numerous allegations, that are personal to the applicant, and that are completely unrelated to the respondent restaurant. She writes at long length about her family’s history, including her aunts and uncles. The Application refers to the applicant’s sister and personal issues related to her. It appears that the applicant may be taking the position that she is no longer welcome at the respondent’s restaurant, however, it is unclear when and why this occurred. It is also even less apparent how this is linked to the Code.

5The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to address all issues of alleged unfairness and inequity. In order for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction over these allegations they must amount to adverse treatment experienced by the applicant that are linked or related to the Code. In this case, while it is fairly clear the applicant is unhappy with the respondent restaurant, she has failed to make allegations about adverse treatment she may have experienced by the respondent restaurant that are sufficiently particular or even understandable enough to be capable of being responded to. Further, the applicant has failed to articulate a link between the respondent restaurant’s alleged conduct and a prohibited ground under the Code. In these circumstances the Application as against the respondent restaurant is dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The remaining respondents

6At the preliminary hearing the Tribunal waited thirty minutes for the Toronto Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) and the Toronto Police Services Board (the “Police Board”) to attend. When they were still not in attendance the Tribunal proceeded with the summary hearing.

7I will briefly summarize the applicant’s allegations which span many years and are very personal in nature. The applicant in lengthy detail went over her medical and personal history. She believes that she has been treated badly during her pregnancy which I note occurred over fifteen years ago. She explained that she was arrested while she was pregnant. She believes that she has been misdiagnosed both with respect to her mental and physical health. She also takes issue with the manner in which she was treated by the CAS and that her children were removed from her care and she is not allowed to see them. The applicant spoke for over an hour about these issues at the mistreatment that she has says she has suffered at the hands of various individuals. She makes general allegations against these respondents, such as they failed to protect her from cancer and that she is not allowed to have a husband.

8The applicant also believes that the police are following her around every day, stalking her and spying on her. During the hearing the applicant did not provide any particulars of when these events occurred. Her Application states that the individuals involved hide their names from her.

9Eventually, the applicant explained that she believes that she is being discriminated against on the basis of her disability, family and marital status.

10Having considered the applicant’s submissions I find that the remaining allegations against the CAS and the Police Board have no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant’s allegations are largely devoid of any particulars, including the names of the individuals involved or the dates on which any alleged events may have occurred. Additionally, in order to proceed to a full hearing some evidence must exist, which goes beyond the applicant’s feeling or belief that a Code ground played a role in what they experienced. In this case the applicant was unable to point to any such evidence, beyond her own assumptions or beliefs.

11As previously stated, the Tribunal does not deal with general allegations of unfairness and inequity. The applicant has failed to satisfy me that she has a reasonable prospect of establishing that her rights under the Code were infringed by the CAS or the Police Board.

Order

12The Applications are dismissed.