HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Maria Rots Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto (Shelter Support Housing Administration) Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: June 2, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 747 Indexed as: Rots v. City of Toronto
APPEARANCES
Maria Rots, Applicant Self-represented
City of Toronto, Respondent Amy Murakami, Counsel
1In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued on November 26, 2015 the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing will 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.
2The summary hearing was held on March 18, 2016 by teleconference. Both parties attended.
3It was clear, based on the materials filed, that much of the Application does not relate to any actions or inactions of the respondent and/or has no apparent connection to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19 (the “Code”).
4However at the summary hearing when I asked the applicant how her complaints were related to the respondent she pointed to three allegations only one of which is clearly in the Application. These are as follows:
a. That she has been promised a housing worker for two years but has not been provided one because she is perceived as mentally ill;
b. That she has been denied access to the Women’s Shelter because she is perceived as mentally ill; and,
c. That an employee of the respondent has urged her to apply for ODSP because she is mentally ill.
5In order to finally determine the issues raised in the November 26, 2015 CAD and because the Application raises allegations related to individuals and events that are completely unconnected to the respondent in addition to being difficult to follow, I concluded that the applicant should be given a further opportunity to attempt to particularize her allegations as against this respondent. The respondent objected on the basis that I was inviting an amendment of the Application.
6Despite this objection I ruled orally and directed in a CAD issued on March 18, 2016 that the applicant deliver and file particulars of these allegations including what she can recall of who was involved, what it is that was said or done, and when the things was said or done. The applicant was also directed to explain how these allegations are violations of the Code.
7The applicant did not comply with the CAD but instead filed one or more Requests for Reconsideration with supporting documentation including decisions of Legal Aid Ontario’s Appeal Division dealing with the applicant’s request to change counsel in another proceeding. The applicant has also provided new complaints she made to various organizations including some that might be connected to the respondent. There are also complaints about the police and complaints about men she has dated in the past few months. Unfortunately the applicant did not provide particulars of the very general allegations that she has made.
8In my view this Application must be dismissed because, as framed, it has no reasonable prospect of success.
9Rules 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.
10Details 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.
11In this case the question is whether there appear to be any allegations capable of proof that would tend to establish that the applicant has experienced discrimination in her dealings with the respondent. Having reviewed the Application and having heard the applicant’s submissions I have concluded that there are no allegations in this Application in its current state that relate to this respondent.
12As indicated above the applicant articulated three allegations in her oral submissions that may relate to this respondent. The applicant was unable to provide any particulars for these allegations to allow the respondent an opportunity to respond. As can be seen the allegations are entirely devoid of particulars, that is we do not know who was involved, where the alleged incidents are said to occur or when they are said to have occurred. They are at this stage simply bald assertions with no link to a Code based ground or are not, on their face, discriminatory.
13The applicant has been unable to provide any particulars. The applicant may be having difficulty managing the hearing process but equally clearly has access to a computer and has access to the Tribunal’s website where, amongst other resources, the applicant would find information about the Human Rights Legal Support Centre which might have assisted her.
14In any case the applicant was provided an opportunity after the summary hearing to deliver and file additional particulars; however, instead of providing particulars the applicant has sent in a considerable amount of material that appears to relate to a number of other proceedings in which she is involved, including criminal matters, at least one civil suit, and other materials related to other difficulties in her life. Based on what are only bald assertions, without any particulars or details, I can only conclude that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
15The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of June, 2016.
”Signed By”
David Muir Vice-chair