Grey v. University Health Network - Toronto Western Hospital, 2017 HRTO 1164

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Delores Grey Applicant

-and-

University Health Network – Toronto Western Hospital and The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: September 7, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1164 Indexed as: Grey v. University Health Network - Toronto Western Hospital

APPEARANCES

Delores Grey, Applicant Self-represented

University Health Network – Toronto Western Hospital, Respondent Lee Lenkinski, Counsel

The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, Respondent Paula Ruzak, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”). The applicant identifies as a Black woman.

2After reviewing the Application, the Tribunal determined that it was appropriate to schedule a summary hearing to clarify the allegations and to determine if the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part as having no reasonable prospect of success. The summary hearing was held on August 23, 2017 by telephone conference call.

Withdrawal of the Application concerning Toronto Western Hospital

3The Application named the Toronto Western Hospital and Peel Regional Police. At the hearing, the applicant advised that she wished to withdraw the Application as against the Toronto Western Hospital. The allegations about the hospital concerned events in approximately July 2016. At the hearing, the applicant confirmed that she understands that withdrawing the Application against the Hospital means that she cannot in the future make a new Application about those events in July 2016. This does not affect her ability to file a new Application about things that may happen in the future.

4On this understanding, the Application against the University Health Network – Toronto Western Hospital, is withdrawn.

Applicant’s concern about counsel

5At the outset of the hearing, the applicant raised an objection concerning Ms. Ruzak, counsel for the Peel Region Police. The applicant alleged that Ms. Ruzak should not be permitted to represent the respondent because of a conflict of interest arising from Ms. Ruzak’s “affiliation” with the Tribunal. Ms. Ruzak explained that she was a member of the Tribunal’s Advisory Committee but that she has no other affiliation with the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s Advisory Committee meets periodically with the Chair of the Tribunal. The members of the Committee are members of the legal community who are active in human rights cases. The Committee has no involvement in individual cases and nothing to do with the appointment or re-appointment of members of the Tribunal. The function of the Committee was explained at the hearing but the applicant continued to maintain that a conflict of interest was present. I made a ruling that there was no conflict of interest and that Ms. Ruzak could continue to represent her client.

Allegations about the Peel Region Police

6Counsel for the Peel Region Police has advised that the respondent should be correctly identified as the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board.

7When the Tribunal directed the summary hearing, it said that the respondents were not required to file a Response to the Application. As a result, there is little information from the respondent about the respondent’s understanding of the applicant’s interactions with the police and the context for those interactions.

8The Application and the documents filed by the applicant since the Application was filed include general allegations about the applicant’s encounters with the police and also some specific allegations.

9The allegations in the Application included allegations about events on or about June 12, 2016. These started when the applicant was at a Tim Horton’s in the drive through lane. She had a dispute with another driver and was arrested by the police. Documents filed by the respondent show that the applicant filed a civil action against the police in small claims court. As part of the action, the applicant filed a statement setting out the history of these events and her allegations about why she was treated unfairly and in a discriminatory way by the police. The respondent provided an Endorsement Record signed by the judge who presided over the case. The endorsement states that for the reasons on the record, the action was dismissed as having “no reasonable cause of action” and because proceeding could lead to an abuse of process.

10The applicant submitted that there is no proof that the court case referred to by the respondent occurred or that the endorsement was actually signed by a judge. At the hearing, I asked the applicant if she participated in a court action as suggested by the documents and she said that she did not wish to answer that question.

11I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish that the court proceedings including the endorsement of the judge did not occur. I find that the applicant's allegations about the events on or about June 12, 2016 have been considered by a court and they have been dismissed. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this Tribunal to allow the applicant to raise the same allegations again. The allegations about events involving the police on or about June 12, 2016 are dismissed on that basis.

12The Application mentions other incidents involving the police relating generally to allegations that the applicant has been arrested while in her home and that these incidents included an improper search of her home, seizure of property. She alleges that the officers involved used vulgar language.

13Counsel for the respondent notes that the Application itself provides no details about these encounters. A purpose of a summary hearing is to allow an applicant to clarify her allegations and to provide more information to help the Tribunal to better understand what the Application is about. I am satisfied that the allegations in the Application include allegations relating to incidents when the applicant was arrested at her home.

14The documents provided by the respondent include two complaints that the applicant made to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (“OIPRD”) regarding two occasions when she was arrested in her home. The dates of the arrests are not clear, but the second complaint indicates that they occurred in the period from September 15 to October 18, 2015. The complaints include some particulars of what the applicant alleges occurred.

15I find that it is not possible at this time to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect of success with respect to the applicant’s allegations concerning the occasions in September and October 2015 when she was arrested at home. The respondents are directed to provide a Response based on the allegations that are set out in the complaints to the OIPRD. The Response should be filed within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

16The Tribunal will provide further direction about how the Application will be dealt with after receiving the Response.

Other allegations

17At the hearing, the applicant mentioned a number of issues that she says are ongoing involving the police who she believes are harassing her and influencing other organizations and individuals to behave negatively toward the applicant. These allegations are not part of the current Application.