CITATION: Reiter v. St. Stephens Community House, 2015 ONSC 7599
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 54/13 DATE: 20151204
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
A.C.J. MARROCCO, SACHS AND VARPIO JJ.
BETWEEN:
R. RUSSELL REITER
Applicant
– and –
ST. STEPHENS COMMUNITY HOUSE and ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL
Respondents
In Person
James Schneider, for the Respondent, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Frank Cesario, for the Respondent, St. Stephens Community House
HEARD at Toronto: December 4, 2015
ENDORSEMENT
VARPIO J.
[1] Mr. Reiter brings an Application for Judicial Review of a February 14, 2012 adjudication of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario where the adjudicator found at a summary hearing that Mr. Reiter’s application should be dismissed on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that it would succeed.
[2] In his oral submissions, Mr. Reiter described a variety of issues he has had with St. Stephen’s House. However, in the instant case, Mr. Reiter’s claim boils down to two issues.
[3] Firstly, Mr. Reiter complains that the summary hearing process is manifestly unfair and, because of that, he has concerns about potential bias. We note that nothing in the materials provides any evidence of bias – either real or reasonable apprehension thereof – and that this Court has, on several occasions, indicated that the summary hearing process is appropriate as a screening mechanism: Eisenberg v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2012 ONSC 4802 (Div. Ct.); and Kassria v. Toronto Police Service, 2012 ONSC 6588 (Div. Ct).
[4] Secondly, Mr. Reiter states that the fact that he was asked by staff at St. Stephen’s Community House – a non-profit charitable organization that provides a variety of services in the Kensington Market area – to not sit on a bench situated on one of St. Stephen’s neighbour’s property violated his rights. As put by Mr. Reiter, when a staff member from St. Stephen’s followed him on to another property and ordered him to leave that staff member violated his right to freedom of disassociation from St. Stephen’s control of his personality. Staff made this request pursuant to St. Stephen’s “Good Neighbour” policy which attempts to ensure, in part, that St. Stephen’s visitors do not loiter or disrupt their neighbours’ enjoyment of the neighbours’ own property. Staff advised Mr. Reiter that, if he sat on a specific neighbour’s bench, his ability to use St. Stephen’s services would be abridged.
[5] Mr. Reiter argues that this action by St. Stephen’s staff constitutes a breach of his Human Rights per the Ontario Human Rights Code.
[6] The adjudicator found that “the applicant [Mr. Reiter] has not demonstrated a link between the actions of the respondent and a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code. He has also not identified a reprisal or threat of reprisal for raising his rights under the Code. In sum, he has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable prospect of success of the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.”
[7] It is agreed by all parties that the appropriate standard of review is reasonableness.
[8] After hearing from Mr. Reiter, this Court finds that the adjudicator’s decision was not only reasonable, it was correct, in that Mr. Reiter is unable to link the impugned actions to any potential violation of the Human Rights Code. The fact that the Applicant was asked to move from one bench to another, as part of St. Stephen’s good neighbour policy, is not discriminatory. There was no allegation or evidence that the policy was applied in a discriminatory fashion. It was not discriminatory for St. Stephen’s to ask the Applicant to leave if he did not follow its rules. The Applicant may believe that it is unfair that St. Stephen’s has a good neighbour policy or that he was asked to move from one bench to another, but none of that implicates the Code or constitutes discrimination thereunder.
[9] As such, the instant application is dismissed.
[10] The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario seeks no costs while St. Stephen’s Community House is content to allow the Court to award costs as it sees fit. Given the positions of the parties and Mr. Reiter’s personal circumstances, we are of the opinion that no costs ought to be awarded in this instance.
___________________________ VARPIO J.
A.C. J. MARROCCO
SACHS J.
Released: December 4, 2015
CITATION: Reiter v. St. Stephens Community House, 2015 ONSC 7599
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 54/13 DATE: 20151204
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
A.C.J. MARROCCO, SACHS AND
VARPIO JJ.
BETWEEN:
R. RUSSELL REITER
Applicant
– and –
ST. STEPHENS COMMUNITY HOUSE and ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL
Respondents
ENDORSEMENT
Released: December 4, 2015