Moore v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2017 HRTO 1082

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Roger Moore Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Respondent

-and-

Randy Weaver Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: August 17, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1082 Indexed as: Moore v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Appearances

Randy Weaver and Roger Moore, Applicants Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent Adrien Iafrate, Counsel

1These Applications allege discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”).

2The Applications relate to the period approximately March 2016 to November 2016 when the applicants were incarcerated at the former Niagara Detention Centre.

3The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to be held by telephone conference call to determine if the Applications should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. A summary hearing allows an applicant to clarify the allegations in the Application and to explain what evidence would be available to help prove the allegations. The hearing was held on June 28, 2017.

4Both applicants self-identify as persons with a disability. They also self-identify as Metis. This identification with respect to Mr. Moore was not clear in his Application but was clarified at the hearing. Both applicants indicated that if they appear in court proceedings they qualify for a “Gladue Court” proceeding.

5The specifics of the two Applications vary somewhat but both make similar allegations. The allegations generally relate to conditions at the institution, including allegations of overcrowding and the consequences for the inmate population of alleged insufficient staffing.

6More specifically, they both allege that they have significant mental health disabilities which require medications. In Mr. Moore’s case, this includes Methadone treatment. He alleges that after arriving at the institution, he was not medically assessed or given access to Methadone for four days and that the dose was only half of what it should have been. He had been receiving daily treatments before his arrest. He says that prescription medications he had with him when he came to the institution were not given to him. In Mr. Weaver’s case, he alleges that he had a long list of prescribed medications that the institution was aware of but which were not provided to him.

7The applicants allege that after a period of time in the general population they were assaulted by other inmates, in Mr. Weaver’s case leading to significant injuries. They were transferred to the medical unit but the cells there were full so they were placed in a segregation cell. They allege that they were put in a very small cell together with another individual. They believe that this cell was a “segregation cell”. They allege that as a consequence of this, they were denied access to the yard and to fresh air and sunshine.

8They also allege that they were denied access to sacred medicines and smudges and a medicine bag when they were transferred to the medical unit. They allege that these were important items related to their cultural and creed based traditions. They allege that denial of access to sunlight is an issue in respect of culture and creed based traditions.

9The applicants further allege that the institution provides meals that meet cultural and creed based needs of other people but does not provide meals that meet the cultural and creed-based traditions of Metis people. They indicated that such a meal was provided on Indigenous Day.

10In its Responses to the Applications, the respondent denies that the applicants were discriminated against on any Code-protected ground. The respondent notes that many of the allegations in the Applications appear to relate to complaints about under-staffing and over-crowding which are not Code-based factors. The respondent asserts that some of the allegations in the Applications are not correct. For example, the respondent states that the applicants were medically assessed at the time they were admitted to the institution and had medical assessments on various occasions during the period to which the Applications relate. The respondent states that the applicants had access to cultural and creed-based programs and activities except on occasions when there was a “lock down” in the institution.

Conclusions

11It is apparent that there are some disagreements between the parties about many of the basic facts underlying the Application. I find that these disagreements need to be clarified before there can be any finding about how the Application should be dealt with. This requires evidence so that an adjudicative finding can be made. For this reason, the Applications are not dismissed at this time and will instead continue in the Tribunal’s process.

12The respondent is directed to advise the Registrar if it is prepared to try mediation at the Tribunal. The Tribunal will continue to process these two Applications together.