Bark v. Mack, 2017 HRTO 981

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Louise Bark Applicant

-and-

Tracey Mack Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: August 1, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 981 Indexed as: Bark v. Mack

APPEARANCES

Louise Bark, Applicant Self-represented

Tracy Mack, Respondent Self-represented

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

2In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued on November 30, 2016, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

3The summary hearing took place on May 26, 2017, by telephone conference call. Both parties participated.

4The Application is dismissed.

5The applicant and the respondent are former members of the Board of Directors of a non-profit organization. The applicant alleges that she was mistreated by the respondent in whole or in part because she has been a person with a disability.

6In the November 30, 2016 CAD, the Tribunal identified the following issues arising out of the pleadings to date:

a. It appears that the applicant may be unable to prove that there is a connection between what the respondent is alleged to have done, and the grounds of disability cited in the Application. That is, although the applicant may believe that the conduct of the respondent is connected to the ground, it is not clear that there is evidence available to the applicant to prove the connection. The focus of this inquiry is on the evidence the applicant has or may be able to obtain.

b. The issue the applicant is raising does not appear to fall under the Code. The focus of this inquiry is on the legal basis for the applicant’s claim and whether or not there is any reasonable prospect the allegations may amount to a Code violation. It would appear that the named respondent may not be in an employment (or other protected social area) relationship with the applicant.

7The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with or remedy general allegations of unfairness. The Tribunal only has the power to deal with discrimination, harassment or reprisal that is prohibited by the Code. Discrimination in the legal sense requires proof that the respondent's adverse treatment of the applicant is based, at least in part, on the applicant’s disability or other prohibited ground under the Code. In other words, the prohibited ground must be connected to the adverse treatment. Although the Application describes a few instances of disagreement on the board and in particular some conflict with the respondent and herself, the applicant was unable to point to any evidence which would tend to establish that the alleged actions of the respondent were informed in whole or in part because she had been or was a person with a disability.

8Moreover the respondent and the applicant are both board members. The Application claims discrimination in employment. I agree with the respondent that there is no employment relationship between the respondent and the applicant. See Wing v. Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation, 2014 HRTO 1472, and the cases cited therein, in particular the Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, 2014 SCC 39.

9For these reasons the Application is dismissed.