Edith Gagnon v. Victoria Tavern, 2017 HRTO 1697

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Edith Gagnon Applicant

-and-

Victoria Tavern Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: December 22, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1697 Indexed as: Gagnon v. Victoria Tavern

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Edith Gagnon, Applicant Self-represented

1By Application dated October 22, 2017, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of her disability and/or ancestry when it denied her services when an employee of the respondent told her that she could not continue to serve her.

2The applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy in which she requested that she be permitted to reattend the respondent's establishment without being denied services.

DECISION

3The conditions for awarding an interim remedy are set out in Rule 23.2:

The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

a. the Application appears to have merit; b. the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and, c. it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

4Normally, the Tribunal's power to order respondents to do or refrain from doing something is contingent upon a finding that they have violated the Code. Interim remedies are extraordinary in that they constitute an order to do or refrain from doing something in the absence of a finding that the Code has been violated. For this reason, an applicant bears a "significant onus" in establishing that the Tribunal should award an interim remedy: TA v 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 269.

5In TA v. 60 Montclair, the Tribunal stated that since the Code is remedial legislation, the fundamental consideration in determining whether to award an interim remedy is "whether an interim remedy is necessary to facilitate and ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should a violation of the Code be found."

6The applicant's request for an interim remedy was not supported by a signed declaration, as required by Rule 23.3(b) of the Tribunal's Rules and on this basis alone must fail. In any event, I am not satisfied that the applicant has met the significant onus of establishing that her request meets the criteria in Rule 23.2 and is necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code. I can understand that the applicant is reluctant to return to the respondent's establishment for fear of being denied services once again. However, I am not persuaded that an interim remedy is necessary to ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should the applicant establish a violation of the Code in this case. If the applicant were to be denied services once again, she would have the right to request an amendment of her Application and seek a higher remedial award to compensate her for any second incident if she was successful in establishing a Code violation.

order

7For the above reasons, the applicant's request for an interim remedy is denied. The Tribunal will continue to process the applicant's Application.

8I am not seized.