HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
N.N. and N.A. as represented by his litigation guardian N.N. Applicant
-and-
Helias Enterprises Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: October 2, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1295 Indexed as: N.N and N.A represented by his litigation guardian N.N v. Helias Enterprises
APPEARANCES
N.N. and N.A. as represented by his litigation guardian N.N., Applicants Brenda Culbert, Counsel
Helias Enterprises, Respondent Alyssa Adams, Counsel
1These Applications allege discrimination in respect of services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”).
2On July 4, 2016, the applicant and his family stayed at a hotel operated by the respondent in Niagara Falls Ontario. The booking included a free breakfast, which was served between 6:00 and 10:00 in the morning.
3The applicant alleges that when he took his young son down to have breakfast in the morning, there was a line up to get in to the breakfast room. He was informed that the breakfast service was closed because it was after 10:00. The applicant complained to the front desk staff and he was given a voucher for a restaurant across the street that had a breakfast buffet. The applicant went across the street with his son and discovered that there was a line up there too. He returned to the respondent’s hotel and advised that the option of the restaurant across the street was not satisfactory.
4The applicant filed the first Application on July 22, 2016. place of origin, ethnic origin, family status, association with a person associated with a code ground, and reprisal.
5On May 16, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing that a summary hearing be held to determine if the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
6After filing the first Application, the applicant retained the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. After the Case Assessment Direction directing the summary hearing, a second Application was filed by the applicant on behalf of his son. That Application alleged that the applicant’s son had experienced discrimination on the grounds of disability.
7The summary hearing was held on September 26, 2017 in respect of both Applications. Brenda Culbert, the applicant's counsel from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, attended on the applicant's behalf. She explained that the applicant was ill and unable to participate but there was no objection to the hearing continuing without him.
8The respondent participated and was represented by counsel.
9After hearing the submissions of the parties on the issues related to the summary hearing, I offered to assist the parties with settlement discussions under the Tribunal’s Mediation/Adjudication model, on the understanding that I would continue to adjudicate the matter if a settlement was not reached. The parties agreed to engage in settlement but a settlement was not reached.
The Second Application
10In the second Application, the applicant states that he told staff at the respondent’s hotel that his son had a disability and that the disability-related needs made it important that the applicant’s son be allowed to eat in the respondent’s breakfast area. At the hearing, Ms. Culbert elaborated that the applicant’s son is on the autism spectrum and that scheduling was very important. The delay in getting breakfast because of the line up at the respondent’s breakfast area was upsetting to the applicant's son. The restaurant across the street also had a line up and in addition it was a different location than the applicant’s son had been anticipating. These circumstances led to significant behavioural issues that the applicant had to contend with.
11The respondent denies that anything was said to suggest that the applicant's son had a disability or any disability-related needs.
12This is therefore a situation that requires the Tribunal to hear evidence in order to determine the applicant’s prospects for establishing an infringement of the Code. At a summary hearing, the Tribunal does not hear evidence and generally accepts, for the purpose of the analysis, that the applicant’s allegations about the facts are true.
The first Application
13In the first Application, there was no indication that the applicant’s son has a disability or that this disability was relevant to the events. The grounds of the alleged discrimination were identified in the Application as Place of Origin, Ethnic Origin, Family Status, and Association with a Person identified with a Code ground. It also alleged reprisal.
14At the hearing, Ms. Culbert noted that at the time the first Application was filed, the applicant was self-represented. She advised that the applicant now withdraws the allegation of discrimination on the grounds of Place of Origin and Ethnic Origin. She explained that the first Application therefore relates only to the fact that the applicant is the father of his son. In seeking accommodation for his son, which was allegedly denied, the applicant too went without breakfast. For this reason, he alleges that he experienced adverse treatment because of his association with his son who is person with a disability. Related to this is that there is a family status relationship between the applicant and his son.
15While this is somewhat convoluted, I am satisfied that the allegation in the first Application that the applicant’s rights were infringed because of his association or relationship with his son can proceed.
16As noted, the allegations about discrimination on the grounds of Place of Origin and Ethnic Origin are withdrawn.
17The allegation of reprisal appears to relate to an allegation from the applicant that he was over-charged for the room because he raised the issues around breakfast. The applicant appears to contend that he understood that the rate for the room including breakfast and parking was to approximately $49 but he was charged approximately $150. I did not hear submissions about this allegation at the hearing. However, it appears that it would be necessary to hear evidence about what the room rate was and what the applicant was told in order to determine if there was any reprisal. This allegation may accordingly also proceed.
Decision
18The Applications may proceed in the Tribunal’s process and are not dismissed at this time as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal will schedule a one-day hearing to hear evidence and submissions from the parties.
19Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of October, 2017.
“Signed By”
Brian Cook Vice-chair```