HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Matthew Christie
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto-Ontario Works and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Ministry of Children and Youth Services
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe
Indexed as: Christie v. Toronto (City)
APPEARANCES
Matthew Christie, Applicant
Self-represented
The City of Toronto – Ontario Works, Respondent
Antonella Ceddia, Counsel
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Ministry of Children and Youth Services
Cheryl Ellison, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to services because of disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).
2By Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to address whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. To that end, the Tribunal decided to hold a summary hearing to address two issues as outlined in the CAD:
a. The Tribunal has held that it does not have the power to review decisions under benefit programs, including those based on disability, to determine if they are correct under the legislation, regulations, or policies governing the program; and,
b. It appears that the applicant may be unable to prove that there is a connection between being denied Housing Stabilization Fund funding and the ground of disability cited in the Application. That is, although the applicant may believe that the conduct of the respondents is connected to his disability, it is not clear that there is evidence available to the applicant to prove the connections. The focus of this inquiry is on the evidence the applicant has or may be able to obtain.
3For the reasons 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 disability with respect to services.
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, 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 experienced.
7The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine if the applicant is able to point to any information which tends to support his belief he experienced discrimination or reprisal under the Code. The question that the Tribunal must decide at a summary hearing is whether the applicant is likely to have any evidence he could call in a hearing to connect to the alleged unfair treatment he experienced to the Code’s protections.
8As the Tribunal indicated in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 (Forde), 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.
facts and submissions
9The applicant identifies as a person with multiple disabilities. He asserts that he was subjected to differential treatment on the basis of disability. To that end he asserts that he was disadvantaged in his dealings with Ontario Works (“OW”) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”).
10The applicant submits that he made a request for the reimbursement of his moving costs from the Housing Stabilization Fund (“HSF”). This fund provides emergency funding to Toronto residents who receive OW or ODSP for needs such as rental and moving costs. There is no dispute that this fund is not administered by OW or ODSP, but is administered by the City of Toronto (the “City”). The applicant says that he submitted a request for HSF funding through his ODSP contact. However, he was subsequently advised that OW does not process HSF funding requests and that he would need to submit his request with that entity. He says that various OW and ODSP representatives failed to communicate with him, or did not communicate with him in a timely manner. To that end, they delayed processing his request. In addition, he asserts that he should have been entitled to HSF funding given his request. The applicant’s HSF request was ultimately denied.
11The applicant takes the position that OW and ODSP colluded to discriminate against him on the basis of disability, and did not provide him a benefit to which he was entitled. Further, the applicant submits that it is obvious that because the respondents knew he was disabled they used this knowledge to subject him to discrimination.
12The respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services (“HMQO”), administers the ODSP. HMQO does not administer the HSF or have any oversight over it; HSF is an emergency financial assistance fund that is administered by the City. The ODSP refers HSF funding requests to the City, and promptly did so in this case.
13The City submits that HSF has its own criteria for eligibility for funding. The City submits that the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirement to obtain HSF funds and as such his request was denied.
ANALYSIS
No Reasonable Prospect of Success
Processing of Request
14The applicant did not point to information that he has, or could obtain to support his belief that he was subject to discrimination because he is disabled. He relies upon bald allegations of discrimination without any details regarding incidents that are linked to the Code. As outlined in Forde, there must be some evidence beyond the applicant’s mere speculation and accusations of discrimination. The mere fact that the applicant is disabled, and the respondents provide services to him that are related to his disability, does not in and of itself establish a link to a breach of the Code. See Glover v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 HRTO 2412 at para 19.
15The applicant asserts that the respondents delayed processing his funding request, and this establishes that he was subject to discrimination under the Code. However, he was not able to point to any evidence that he could call in a merits hearing that would establish that his disability was a factor in any delayed processing of his Application.
Benefits Denial
16Lastly, the applicant asserts that because he was denied a benefit and is a person with a disability, he was subjected to discrimination under the Code. However, he was not able to point to any evidence to support this belief beyond his belief that the denial of benefits must be based on his disability. Again the applicant relies upon bald allegations of discrimination which lack sufficient details regarding how the incidents were based on Code grounds. The Tribunal has ruled an allegation that a decision-maker solely misapplied the rules of a program cannot be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. See Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 1797, at para 16, and Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115, at para 5 and 21.
17Given his submissions, it is clear that the applicant strongly believes that he was subjected to discrimination under the Code. However, the Tribunal has repeatedly said that an applicant’s belief, no matter how strongly held, is not evidence upon which the Tribunal might find that discrimination has occurred. See, for example, Leong v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2014 HRTO 311. Consequently, the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
Order
18For the above reasons, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of December, 2017.
“Signed by”
Esi Codjoe
Vice-chair