HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mohamed Nemmour
Applicant
-and-
The Scott Mission Emergency Shelter, Christina Bonadonnna, Judith Vargas Machuca, Pedro Perez and Peter Duraisami
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Nemmour v. The Scott Mission Emergency Shelter
APPEARANCES
Mohamed Nemmour, Applicant
Self-represented
The Scott Mission Emergency Shelter, Christina Bonadonnna, Judith Vargas Machuca, Pedro Perez and Peter Duraisami, Respondents
Andre R. Nowakowski, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of ethnic origin, creed and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant asserts also that he is being associated with Muslim individuals because of his first name.
2On August 10, 2015, the Tribunal directed, at its own initiative, that a summary hearing would be held to determine whether all or part of the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success. The respondents were directed not to file a Response.
3All parties participated at the summary hearing.
What this Application is about
4The respondents to this Application are the Scott Mission Emergency Shelter ("Shelter") and all of the personal respondents are employed in some capacity with the Shelter. The applicant utilized the services of the Shelter for two extended stays from September 2013 until April 4, 2014. The Application relates to the conditions of the Shelter, the applicant's unfair treatment by staff and the Shelter's ultimate decision to cease providing services to the applicant.
5The applicant explained that he has been engaged in a series of demonstrations including running a 4-5 year marathon around Queen's Park under the sign "1000 Marathons for the Ontario Human Rights to Live Everywhere, for Everyone…" The applicant seeks to have the legislature enact legislation entitled the "People Protection Act". The applicant explained that as part of his protest action he refuses to accept money from anyone and that he has donated all of his belongings (except for his clothes).
6The applicant denies that he violated any of the Shelter's rules. He believes that two arbitrary decisions were taken by the respondents with respect to his ability to stay at the Shelter, in January and April 2014. This Decision is based solely on the allegations made by the applicant since the respondents were directed not to file a Response to the Application.
7The Application incudes, detailed submissions with respect to the amenities and facilities provided by the Shelter, including the condition of sheets, blankets, the cleanliness of floors, and washrooms. The applicant believes that the Shelter is not complying with various municipal guidelines and by-laws.
8The applicant also takes issue with food safety and nutritional standards which he says is breached by the Shelter. The applicant also stated that there is not enough food for all of the residents. The applicant also recounted that he has been unfairly targeted because he is not permitted to take food outside of the shelter. It appears that he has been accused of taking cereal outside of the Shelter. The applicant explained that because of his protests he has special needs with respect to food. The respondents have also accused him of taking cereal and stale bread to feed the birds.
9The applicant also accuses the personal respondents of harassment, including the manner in which he was treated when he was not feeling well, the applicant suffers from vertigo. The applicant says that one time he was not feeling well and he was brought to a bed but that no one checked up on him during the night. The applicant also believes that an ambulance should have been called by one of the personal respondents. He also alleges that he was not permitted to enter the Shelter after hours. The applicant says that he was not in fact late and that he should have been permitted to enter the Shelter. He also believes that staff did not appropriately respond to an incident involving another resident who sat in his seat and would not let him take a sandwich.
10With respect to his treatment by the Shelter the applicant believes that this may be an effort by the respondents to interfere with his protests. He also believes that this is because of his first name and that he is identified as being Muslim.
11The applicant also believes that he was reprised against when he made a number of complaints with respect to his treatment at the hands of the respondent which ultimately led to the decision that the Shelter would not provide services to the applicant.
The Law
12Details 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.
13The applicant states that the respondents' alleged actions are a reprisal. Section 8 of the Code, which prohibits reprisals or threats of reprisals, states:
Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal.
14As the Tribunal stated in Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878, in order to prove reprisal, an applicant must establish that the respondent engaged in an action, or threat, which was intended as a retaliation for the claiming or enforcement of a right under the Code.
Decision
15I have considered the applicant's submissions. The Tribunal has repeatedly stated that it does not have jurisdiction over all allegations of general unfairness. In order for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of an application it must relate to a prohibited ground under the Code. At a summary hearing the applicant must demonstrate that there is some evidence to support that a prohibited ground was a factor in in the alleged adverse treatment.
16In this case, I am of the view that the applicant's allegations that a prohibited ground of discrimination was a factor in his treatment are pure speculation and belief. I understand that the applicant believes that he has been unfairly treated by the respondents however he has not provided any evidence that would link this to a Code ground. Further, I note that the majority of the allegations in the Application relate to the sufficiency of the amenities and facilities provided by the City and whether the Shelter has complied with existing guidelines and by-laws, issues that are unrelated to the Code.
17Further, I am of the view that, though he disagrees that he has breached any of the Shelter's rules that it is clear that there have been on-going issues between the parties. In these circumstances I also find that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of establishing that the respondents reprised, committed an action, or threat, which was intended to retaliate against the applicant for the claiming a right under the Code.
18The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of June, 2016.
"Signed By"
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair