Kalkat v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 1617

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ruminder Kalkat

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky

Date: December 5, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1617

Indexed as: Kalkat v. Toronto Police Services Board

APPEARANCES

Ruminder Kalkat, Applicant Self-represented

Toronto Police Services Board and Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service, Respondents Philip Chan, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the grounds of race, ancestry, ethnic origin and creed, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that, on October 21, 2016, the respondent forced him to sit in a Salvation Army chapel and then physically attacked him because he was a Sikh. The applicant also alleged that the respondent had stolen his property over several years.

2On March 29, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, advising the applicant that a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

3The applicant filed brief submissions in response to the Notice on April 7, 2017, essentially repeating his initial allegations.

4Having reviewed the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) on June 29, 2017, indicating that it would hold a summary hearing to determine if the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application would succeed. The Tribunal stated that it had decided to hold a summary hearing on the following grounds:

(i) it appeared that the applicant may be unable to prove that there was a connection between what the respondent is alleged to have done, and the grounds of race, ancestry, ethnic origin and creed cited in the Application;

(ii) the issue the applicant was raising did not appear to fall under the Code; and

(iii) it appeared the applicant may not be able to show that his allegations were connected to the area of goods, services and facilities, in other words, how he could show that the respondent was providing him with goods, services or facilities.

5The Tribunal conducted a summary hearing on November 10, 2017.

6For the following reasons, I find that the Application must be dismissed.

legal framework

7The 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.

8However, accepting the facts alleged by the applicant does not include accepting the applicant’s assumptions about why he or she was treated unfairly. The Tribunal cannot address allegations of unfairness that are unrelated to the Code. The 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 experienced discrimination under the Code. The question that the Tribunal must decide is whether the applicant can point to any evidence that could connect the unfair treatment he or she allegedly experienced with a ground of discrimination protected under the Code.

9As 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.

findings

10At the summary hearing, the applicant explained that he was required to move out of his parents’ house when his father passed away in July 2016, and that he then moved into a Salvation Army residence. He said that while “sitting quietly” in a chapel there, two police officers came in, “beat [him] up for no reason”, and then told him to “get the hell out of here.”

11The applicant alleged that the police mistreated him because of his race, colour and religion. However, even assuming that the police treated him as described, the applicant failed to point to any evidence that he could call at a hearing to show a connection between this treatment and a ground in the Code. I note that despite opportunities both before and during the summary hearing to provide particulars of the incident, the applicant only indicated the general location of the altercation and one of the officers’ names. Therefore, having considered the surrounding circumstances as alleged by the applicant, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that an adjudicator could draw an inference that race was a factor in how he was allegedly treated.

12In the course of the summary hearing, the applicant alleged for the first time that, while he was living with his parents, another police officer had frequented his house and had harassed and discriminated against him at those times. However, the applicant also said that these incidents occurred approximately 8-9 months ago, namely in early 2017, after he claimed to have moved out of his parents’ home. The applicant submitted that he thought that the treatment he allegedly experienced in the Salvation Army chapel might be connected to the previous incidents of alleged discrimination at his parents’ house.

13The respondents objected to the applicant raising these new allegations.

14While the applicant had previously claimed that the police had stolen from him over several years, he made no mention of the harassing and/or discriminatory conduct on the part of the police at his family’s home. Absent a request to amend his Application, I am not prepared to consider these new allegations.

15In any event, given the fundamental discrepancy as to when the applicant claimed that the newly alleged events took place, in my view, they have no reasonable prospect of supporting a link between the subsequent events at the chapel and the grounds listed in the Application.

16Similarly, even assuming that the alleged mistreatment at his family’s home took place, the applicant failed to point to any evidence to suggest that that treatment resulted in the alleged discriminatory treatment at the chapel.

17Finally, while the applicant claimed that the police had stolen from him over several years, he failed to provide any particulars of this, how it might have been discriminatory as distinct from criminal, or how it might have been related to the allegedly discriminatory treatment at the chapel.

18In all of the circumstances, I find that the applicant has not pointed to any evidence that could connect the unfair treatment he allegedly experienced with a ground of discrimination protected under the Code. The Application, therefore, has no reasonable prospect of success.

order

19The Application is dismissed.