Hicks v. The Ottawa Hospital - Riverside Campus, 2016 HRTO 546

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anthony Hicks

Applicant

-and-

The Ottawa Hospital – Riverside Campus

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: April 26, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 546
Indexed as: Hicks v. The Ottawa Hospital - Riverside Campus

APPEARANCES

Anthony Hicks, Applicant Self-represented

The Ottawa Hospital – Riverside Campus, Respondent Porter Heffernan, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant alleges reprisal and discrimination in the provision of services because of ethnic origin, race and colour contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). He alleges generally that there is a conspiracy by an anti-black group of individuals, including lawyers, a law firm and doctors that meant he was examined by a fake doctor at the respondent hospital. It is the applicant’s belief that this was part of a conspiracy designed to make him lose a prior Application against his former employer, a fitness club, allegedly because the fake doctor prescribed him too high a dose of a particular medication, which could have had ill effects on him if he had taken it. He also alleges he was reprised against by being denied his medical records.

2In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued on December 22, 2015 the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing would be held to determine whether this 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.

3Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure read 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.

19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure or witness statements.

4Details 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.

5As was indicated in the CAD the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment on the grounds set out in the Code. To succeed in an Application, an applicant must be able to prove discrimination on the basis of a Code ground on a balance of probabilities. To show discrimination, an applicant must prove a link between a respondent’s alleged actions and a Code ground.

6In an application alleging reprisal, the following elements must be established as set out at para. 33 of Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878, as follows:

a. An action taken against, or threat made to, the complainant;

b. The alleged action or threat is related to the complainant having claimed, or attempted to enforce a right under the Code; and

c. An intention on the part of the respondent to retaliate for the claim or attempt to enforce the right.

7Having reviewed the Application and heard the submissions of the applicant and the respondent I find that this Application must be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success. I find that the applicant can point to no evidence in his possession or that may be reasonably available to him which would tend to prove a link between being seen by a fake doctor and the applicant’s race, colour or ethnic origin. I find also that the applicant can point to no evidence in his possession or that may be reasonably available to him to prove that being denied his medical records is a reprisal.

8The applicant alleges that the events that were the subject of his prior Application were set up to catch people dealing with government corruption. Allegedly because of the prior Application, the applicant was seen by a fake doctor at the respondent hospital who looked like the applicant’s former boss. This fake doctor allegedly gave the applicant medication that would likely have made him psychotic if he had taken it. The applicant alleges that this event allegedly was orchestrated by a group of anti-black individuals, including the law firm and lawyers involved in the prior Application, who tried to violate the applicant’s human rights so that he would look unwell and lose that Application.

9The applicant further alleges that when he spoke to the chief of staff at the respondent hospital about the incident, he allegedly told the applicant he investigated the applicant’s claim about the fake doctor and found that the applicant was correct. The applicant alleges that the chief of staff then later said the applicant’s complaint about the incident would be downgraded and left to patient advocacy, which the applicant alleges was done because the chief of staff discovered the applicant was correct and wanted to hide the fact.

10The applicant could not point to any other evidence in his possession or that may be reasonably available to him that these events occurred because of his race, ethnic origin or colour other than that he believes it is a group of anti-black individuals who are conspiring against him.

11In my view it is clear that the applicant cannot point to any evidence in his possession or that may be reasonably available to him beyond his own belief that would establish that a factor in the alleged incidents of discrimination was a reprisal for bringing the prior Application, or because of his race, colour and ethnic origin.

12As the Tribunal points out in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17:

The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code.

13The applicant’s allegation that his race, colour and ethnic origin were factors in the alleged events is nothing more than a bald assertion or, to use the words in Forde, “mere speculation and accusations.” The applicant was not able to point to any evidence beyond the conspiracy theory why these events occurred because of the grounds on which he claimed discrimination, including the documentary evidence submitted to the Tribunal.

14I also asked the applicant how he could show that he was reprised against for having asserted his rights under the Code, and the applicant explained he was reprised against because he has never received his medical records from the respondent hospital even though he asked for them. He wanted these records to be able to show that the doctor he saw was fake.

15Other than the applicant’s allegations that he did not receive his medical records, he points to no other evidence that would support his allegation of reprisal, or in other words, that this was retaliation for claiming or attempting to enforce his Code rights.

16Given the absence of any proposed evidence, or any evidence that may be reasonably available to the applicant, on which a link to a prohibited Code ground might be established, I must conclude that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of success of proving discrimination on the basis of any of the alleged grounds.

17For these reasons the Application is dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success.

ORDER

18The Application is dismissed.