Eckler v. Staples, 2017 HRTO 957

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marshall Eckler Applicant

-and-

Jill Staples, Astrid Manske, Brenda Steed, Cindy Hope and Yvonne Mark Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jacek Janczur Date: July 27, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 957 Indexed as: Eckler v. Staples

APPEARANCES

Marshall Eckler, Applicant Self-represented

Jill Staples, Astrid Manske, Brenda Steed, Cindy Hope, and Yvonne Mark, Respondents Gabriel Poliquin, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of creed in the area of goods, services and facilities contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant alleged that he was prevented from displaying his goods in a 10’ x 10’ kiosk at the Peterborough Farmers’ Market (the “Farmers’ Market”) on January 6, 2016. The applicant states that other vendors are allowed to erect 10’ x 10’ kiosks.

3The applicant further alleges that on November 1, 2016, he was not allowed to share space at the Farmers’ Market. This, he says, was contrary to an established protocol where available space was allocated on the basis of seniority.

4The applicant alleges that both of these events occurred because he is Jewish.

5In his Application, the applicant stated that another vendor at the Farmers’ Market who is Jewish, J.B., was not offered a seat on the Board of Directors of the Farmers’ Market when a member resigned. This, he says, was in violation of an established protocol whereby the first-runner-up in the election for the Board of Directors is offered a seat when a vacancy occurs.

6On February 15, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing a summary hearing of the application. The Tribunal directed the summary hearing because it appeared that the applicant might be unable to prove a connection between the respondents’ actions that he complained of and the protected ground of creed; and, that some of the issues that the applicant was raising did not fall under the Code.

7The summary hearing was held on July 19, 2017.

Analysis and Decision

8The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code. To fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, an application must contain allegations that connect a respondent’s conduct to one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Application and the applicant’s submissions deal with allegations of discrimination on the basis of creed.

9In order to proceed beyond the summary hearing stage of an application, the applicant must be able to point to evidence he would be able to call in a hearing that could establish a link between the actions of the respondent and the prohibited ground of creed cited in the Application.

10In this case, the Applicant points to his exclusion from participation in the Farmers’ Market in two ways: the restriction that was placed on the size of his kiosk in January 2016, and the failure to offer him space in November 2016.

11He further points to the experience of another Jewish person, J.B., whom he claims was excluded from the Board of Directors when he should have been offered a seat.

12At the summary hearing stage, the allegations of the applicant are assumed to be true and the Tribunal must be sensitive to the limitations on the availability of evidence to the applicant at the summary hearing stage. Taking all of the above into consideration, and accepting it to be true, the applicant alleges what could be viewed as a pattern of exclusion from participation in the Farmers’ Market that is directed at Jewish people and which he has experienced.

13While it may be difficult for the applicant to prove if the Application proceeds to hearing, it cannot be said at this stage that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

order

14Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.