McNulty v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2016 HRTO 475

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kelly McNulty

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: April 14, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 475

Indexed as: McNulty v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

APPEARANCES

Kelly McNulty, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Respondent

Michelle Schreider, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of family status, marital status and place of origin, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleges that the denial of payment for a cell phone and other items under the Ontario Works Program amounts to discrimination on the basis of the identified grounds.

2The respondent argues that it has been improperly named and that it is not the party that made the decision to deny the applicant payment for the items in question.

3In response to the respondent’s argument that it has been improperly named, the applicant appears to be alleging that the respondent is properly named and bears the ultimate responsibility for denial of payment for the items in question because provincial legislation, regulation and policies resulted in the decision that adversely affected her which, she appears to concede, was made by the specific municipality where she resides.

4If found to have been properly named, the respondent also argues that the applicant cannot establish a link between the events that she argues are discriminatory and the Code grounds that she has enumerated and seeks summary dismissal of the Application.

5The Tribunal directed that a teleconference hearing be held to determine whether some or all of the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

6A teleconference hearing took place during which the Tribunal heard submissions from the parties. For the reasons that follow, this Application is dismissed.

decision

7Rule 19A.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure reads as follows:

19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an 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.

8In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 7-9, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:

A summary hearing is generally ordered at an early stage in the process. In some cases, the respondent may not have been required to provide a response. In others, the respondent may have responded but disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and the preparation of witness statements, which generally occur following the Notice of Hearing, will not yet have happened.

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.

9The applicant alleges that she experienced discrimination in receipt of goods, services and facilities on the basis of family status, marital status and place of origin.

10In her oral submissions, the applicant explained that her claim of discrimination against the respondent is based on her view that because she is a single person without dependants and not a "foreigner, immigrant or a refugee”, she has been subjected to differential treatment on a number of occasions, resulting in disadvantage to her.

11She says that she needs to have a phone in order to communicate with prospective employers and landlords. She argues that the failure of the respondent to respond to her request for a cell phone and the subsequent refusal of the municipality in which she resides, and from whom she receives Ontario Works benefits, to reimburse her for the phone amounts to discrimination by the respondent, presumably because the municipality was applying provincial legislation, regulations and policy. She says that she is still residing in a shelter for five years because of the discriminatory treatment.

12The applicant also alleges that the respondent discriminated against her by denying her a job placement and access to dental cleaning services. She argues that she is being denied these services while foreigners, refugee claimants and their whole families are provided the same services.

13Finally, she argues that the federal government is discriminating against her by taking and using scarce resources from the respondent Ministry on “non-productive foreigners” while Canadian born citizens such as herself are denied funds for necessary services.

14Having reviewed the Application, the materials filed and having heard from the applicant, I find that the respondent was not properly named. The respondent ministry had no direct involvement with the applicant and was not providing services to her. It did not make any decisions in respect of the issues she has raised.

15To the extent that the respondent Ministry is responsible for setting policies pursuant to the legislation and regulations governing the delivery of social assistance in this province, and to the extent that the decisions made by the municipality in which the applicant resides were in compliance with those laws, regulations and policies, the applicant has not persuaded me that there is any connection between the decisions made and the Code grounds identified by her other than bald speculation.

16In my view, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will succeed in establishing a breach of the Code in respect of her allegations. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.