Cameron v. Hamilton Black History Committee, 2016 HRTO 541

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ruth Cameron

Applicant

-and-

Hamilton Black History Committee

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: April 25, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 541

Indexed as: Cameron v. Hamilton Black History Committee

APPEARANCES

Ruth Cameron, Applicant

Self-represented

Hamilton Black History Committee, Respondent

Christine Ashton, Counsel

1The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis.

2On December 22, 2014, the applicant, who identifies as a Black lesbian, filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent, which organizes an annual awards ceremony to recognize achievement in the Black community, discriminated against her with respect to services because of her sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Specifically, she alleged that the respondent rejected her request to establish a scholarship for Black lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (“LGBT”) youth at its 2015 ceremony, but had a historical practice of accepting such requests from others whose identity and proposed scholarship was not tied to sexual orientation and gender identity.

3On February 27, 2015, the respondent filed a Response, which denied that the Application falls under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and denied the allegation of discrimination. Specifically, the respondent stated that it is an unincorporated volunteer group, and that the applicant was not requesting or provided a service. Alternatively, the respondent stated, it did not discriminate against the applicant because it did not have enough time to establish the scholarship for the 2015 ceremony, but was open to establishing such a scholarship for the 2016 ceremony.

4On April 13, 2015, the respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing. On April 24, 2015, the applicant filed a Response, which opposed the Request.

5On June 17, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), which directed that a hearing be held to decide whether the Application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis. The CAD directed the parties to address two issues:

1. Does the Application fall within a social area covered by the Code?

2. Is there no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed?

6The hearing took place on October 1, 2015. Both parties made oral submissions, and relied upon the materials that they had previously filed.

7With respect to the first issue, the applicant argued that the respondent was providing a service, while the respondent denied that it was providing a service. Neither party supported its position by presenting any case law involving a group or organization similar to the respondent. I am not satisfied at this preliminary stage, where the Tribunal has not heard the oral testimony of witnesses and does not have a full evidentiary record before it, that it would be safe to rule on this issue, particularly where there is no case law before the Tribunal involving a group or organization similar to the respondent. Either such case law exists, but has not been provided, or no such case law exists, in which case this is a novel set of facts which needs to be considered carefully with witness testimony and a full evidentiary record.

8With respect to the second issue, the applicant and respondent both repeated the version of the facts set out in their respective pleadings. Those two sets of facts conflict in some key respects. I am not satisfied at this preliminary stage, where there are credibility issues about some of the key facts, that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. Rule 19A.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that where the Tribunal decides not to dismiss an Application following a summary hearing, it need not give reasons. However, I will point out that the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success is reliant upon the Tribunal accepting its version of the facts, which the Tribunal cannot do at this preliminary stage. Furthermore, assuming without deciding that the applicant’s version of the facts is true, it cannot be said that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

9The Tribunal therefore makes the following order and direction:

1. The respondent’s request that the Application be dismissed on a preliminary basis is denied.

2. The Application will proceed to a two-day merits hearing.

10I am not seized of this matter.