Gaea v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2017 HRTO 1031

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Gigi Gaea Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Yasmeena Mohamed Date: August 10, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1031 Indexed as: Gaea v. Ontario (Attorney General)

Appearances

Gigi Gaea, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Respondent Brent Kettles, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of place of origin, disability and family status. Specifically, the applicant alleges that the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”) has discriminated against her by harassing, threatening and bullying her during the application process for guardianship of her mother. The applicant also alleges that she was subject to discrimination on the above-noted grounds because her guardianship application was unduly delayed.

2By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated December 8, 2016, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success.

SUMMARY HEARING

3The summary hearing proceeded on June 7, 2017. The parties were provided the opportunity to make oral submissions on the issue raised in the CAD. Having heard and reviewed the oral and written submissions by the parties, I dismiss this Application on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. The following are my reasons.

Facts as alleged in the Application

4In or around March 16, 2015, the applicant filed a guardianship application for her mother, a ward of the PGT. At the time, the applicant spoke to a representative of the PGT office on the telephone, who advised her that her guardianship application was complete and that it had been referred to the PGT’s head-office for processing. According to the applicant, the PGT head-office delayed the processing of her application and made unreasonable requests for money and documentation. For example, the PGT required the applicant to submit a security deposit of twenty five thousand dollars cash, specialized notarized copies of the applicant’s birth certificate, driver’s licence, legal name change documents and affidavits that swore that the applicant was not adopted (“identification documents”).

5The applicant also alleged that she spoke to a representative of the PGT head-office, Ms. B, who threatened and harassed her. Specifically, the applicant alleged that Ms. B became rude, curt and threatening on the telephone when she became aware of the applicant’s place of origin and residence in Hawaii. The applicant also alleged that Ms. B had suggested that her mother did not want the applicant to be her guardian and that her mother did not even know her.

6The applicant alleged that, on January 9, 2016, she filed a complaint with Ms. B’s manager, D.B., about the delay in processing the guardianship application and Ms. B’s threats and harassing conduct. The applicant alleged that D.B failed to investigate her complaint in a timely way and instead, reiterated Ms. B’s demand for the notarized identification documents. The applicant alleged that both Ms. B and D.B.’s response and interactions with her were threatening and therefore discriminatory.

7The applicant alleged that the harassment from the PGT head-office continued from January 2016 to April 2016, as the PGT allegedly made erroneous demands for notarized copies of her identification documents, each time changing the demand and form of notarization. The applicant alleged that the PGT head-office requested a “raised seal” form of notarization that, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, is only required in serious cases of criminal activity. The applicant alleged that the demand for this type of special notarization demonstrates PGT’s harassment, bullying and undue delaying of her application.

Respondent’s Response

8The respondent submits from the outset that the Application is moot because the PGT has advised the applicant that it is prepared to appoint her as her mother’s guardian of property provided that she obtains a surety bond in the amount prescribed by the PGT.

9The respondent submits that, upon receipt of the applicant’s guardianship application, it initiated the standard screening process of verifying the applicant name, relationship with her mother and her financial capability of taking guardianship of her mother.

10The respondent submits that the applicant had previously presented several different legal names to the PGT head-office. In order to verify the applicant’s legal name and her relationship with her mother, the respondent requested specialized notarized identification documentation from the applicant. The respondent submits that this requirement for specialized notarized identification documentation is a standard requirement for all guardianship applicants presenting several different legal identities. Similarly, the respondent submits that its request for a security deposit of some monetary value from the applicant is a standard request for all guardianship applicants that reside out of Province. The applicant is no exception in this regard.

11The respondent acknowledges that the applicant’s guardianship application was delayed at the beginning of the process, but submits that the delay was because of staffing issues. The respondent submits that it had provided the applicant with a written explanation for the delay, including a timely response to her complaints against Ms. B and D.B. The respondent submits that throughout the process Ms. B and D.B. were acting within the scope of their duties and their conduct was not related to any discriminatory grounds alleged by the applicant. The respondent submits the Application should therefore be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

ANALYSIS and DECISION

12The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

13The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that it does not have a general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. See for example: Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, Szabo v. Office of a Member of Parliament of Canada, 2011 HRTO 2201, and Badvi v. Voyageur Transportation, 2011 HRTO 1319. Discrimination generally involves an allegation of unfair treatment on the basis of one or more of the grounds under the Code, such as race, colour or ethnic origin. Unfair treatment is not discriminatory in the legal sense unless there is proof that one or more of these personal characteristics was a factor in the treatment the applicant experienced.

14At a summary hearing, the test the Tribunal applies is that of no reasonable prospect of success, which is determined by assuming the applicant’s version of events is true unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary. Accepting the facts alleged by the applicant does not include accepting the applicant’s assumptions about why they were treated unfairly. The mere fact that a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination experiences some kind of disagreeable or unfair treatment is not generally sufficient to support an inference of discrimination. The question that the Tribunal must decide at a summary hearing is whether there is likely to be sufficient direct or indirect evidence available to connect the unfair treatment experienced by the applicant with the applicant’s personal characteristics. However, if the applicant is unable to point to circumstances beyond his or her own assumptions or beliefs, the application may be found to have no reasonable prospect of success.

15There is no dispute that the applicant’s guardianship application was delayed by the respondent at the beginning of the process. However, it also appears from the submissions and email documentation that the application process was extended by the amendment to the guardianship application, the respondent’s requests for specialized notarized identification documentation and the applicant’s difficulty and delay in responding to those requests. The applicant submits that the delay of her guardianship application at the outset and the subsequent notarization requests and security deposit requests were excessive and discriminatory, because of her place of origins and mother’s disability. However the applicant did not point to any evidence beyond her suspicions to indicate that those notarized documentation demands and security deposit requests, were related to her place of origin, place of residence, her family status and/or her mother’s disability. The PGT deals with persons with disabilities and the demand for documentation verifying the identification of the guardianship applicant and security deposit of some monetary value appears to be part of their standard screening process, especially if the person has a multitude of legal names/identities and resides outside of the Ontario. Significantly, the applicant has not disputed the fact that she had provided different legal names to the PGT and that the identification documents requested to verify her legal name were required.

16The applicant submits that Ms. B became threatening toward her once she became aware of her place of origin and location of residence. However, the applicant did not point to any evidence, beyond her own suspicions, that she could call in a hearing to show that Ms. B’s interactions and request for additional specialized documentation were not imposed on others in her circumstances. That is, she has pointed to no evidence to call in a hearing to show that the requirements were not imposed on others who resided outside of Ontario and who had provided several different legal names to the PGT.

17The applicant also submits that the interactions with D.B. became threatening but did not point to any evidence she could call in a hearing to show that D.B. imposed any requirements on her that were not also imposed on others in her circumstances.

18The applicant submits that the respondent failed to investigate her complaints against Ms. B and D.B., but did not point to any evidence to indicate their failure to investigate was related to the grounds of discrimination cited.

Findings

19In this case I find that the applicant failed to point to any evidence that links the alleged discriminatory conduct of the respondent with the grounds listed in the Application. The applicant appears to be extremely unhappy about the delay in processing her guardianship application and the specialized notarized documentation required by the PGT and may feel they are unfair. However, as the Tribunal has consistently held, for an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process following a summary hearing, 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. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17. I find that the applicant has failed to do so in this case.

20For the above reasons, I find the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

ORDER

21The Application is dismissed.