Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Edward Gavrilov Applicant
-and-
Jeff Cohen and Uri Cohen Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe
Indexed as: Gavrilov v. Cohen
APPEARANCES
Edward Gavrilov, Applicant Self-represented
Jeff Cohen, Respondent Self-represented
Uri Cohen, Respondent Self-represented
Introduction
1The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to accommodation because of ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to address whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
3As outlined below, I find that the Application must be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success under the Code. Even if I accept all of the facts alleged by the applicant as true, the applicant has not been able to point to any evidence beyond his own suspicions that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin with respect to accommodation.
Summary Hearing Process
4The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) as well as the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests. The purpose of a summary hearing is to consider, early in the proceeding and usually before a Response is filed, whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part because there is no reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.
5The Tribunal cannot address allegations of unfairness that are unrelated to the Code. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to claims of discrimination that are linked to the protections set out in the Code.
6The test that is applied at the summary hearing stage is whether an application has no reasonable prospect of success. At this stage, the Tribunal is not determining whether the applicant is telling the truth or assessing the impact of the treatment he or she experienced. The test of no reasonable prospect of success is determined by assuming the applicant’s version of events is true unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary or the evidence is not disputed by the applicant.
7The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine if the applicant is able to point to any information which tends to support his or her belief that he or she has experienced discrimination or reprisal under the Code. The question that the Tribunal must decide at a summary hearing is whether there is likely to be any evidence, or any evidence that may be reasonably available to the applicant to connect the unfair treatment allegedly experienced by the applicant with the Code’s protections.
8As the Tribunal indicated in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, 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 a breach of the Code.
FactUAL BACKGROUND
9The applicant is originally from Russia, and describes himself as a Russian Jew. He says that the respondents swore at him, called him names such as “dirty Russian,” and treated him differently. In addition, the applicant says that the first respondent threatened to sexually assault him, and as such this was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The applicant asserts that the comments prove that he was subjected to discrimination under the Code. The Application pertains to incidents that allegedly occurred at a building where the respondents used to live. However, the respondents did not live in the building during the time frame outlined in the Application. There is no dispute that neither of the respondents were occupants, the landlord’s agent, or the landlord for the building where the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred. Although the applicant alleges that he was subject to discrimination, in essence his Application outlines allegations that could be viewed as harassment. I will address the application of both sections 2(1) and 2(2) in this decision.
10The right to be free from discrimination and harassment in accommodation are outlined in subsections 2(1) and 2(2) of the