Human Rights Process, Interim Decision, Case Assessment Direction Released Against Kory Read & Allison Read 2019

Below you will find some info on the Human Rights Tribunal that I found that helped me understand how it worked while I was going through the process, though I found it towards the end.

This document is in easy to understand terms and lays out what is required when applying to the HRTO and once I read it a few times to process it, I noticed that Kory & Allison Read have not followed it, which is why their applications were failing and why in the end they walked away from it completely. They knew they lied and had no proof and it was shown by this point that the HRTO wouldn’t just take them at their word, hence the Interim Decision that was sent out in March 2019 that they ignored.

As they were evicted by process of the Landlord and Tenant Board for their persistent and consistent refusal of access, which they admitted to doing, and it was upheld on Appeal as well. There was no issue with race nor different treatment, as they try to imply in their applications and on their websites by anyone, it was a fantasy they came up with over time to put the spotlight on other people instead of themselves.

Kory & Allison Read refused to accept they didn’t have control over entry to the apartment nor did they have any control over me in how I did my job there. In the end, they still had to move out and this pisses them off so much that they have to create a Smear Campaign online in their attempts to ruin my life, as they feel theirs has been. It is revenge! How spiteful and childish can you get?

Everything they do in the content on their sites is out of retaliation for their eviction and it is so easy to see it!

Even though the LTB said there was no harassment and bullying of the building staff, it don’t mean that another agency would not.

I am very proud of myself and the person I am becoming. I will no longer tolerate this type of disrespect and will speak up for myself against injustice, such as this Smear Campaign that Kory Read and Allison Read have online against me! Don’t I have the right to do so?

https://www.hrlsc.on.ca/en/how-guides-and-faqs#4

This means that, in many cases, discrimination can only be proved by drawing inferences and conclusions from the circumstances surrounding an instance of negative or unfair treatment.  

To prove discrimination, you must be able to show at your hearing that it is more likely than not that, in all of the circumstances, discrimination was a factor in the events or actions that gave rise to your application.  

In understanding how to prove discrimination, a good place to start is with the legal definition of discrimination. Not all unfair or negative conduct is discrimination within the meaning of the Code.  The Tribunal does not have the power to hear cases that involve general claims of unfairness not tied to  Code discrimination. 

What is the test for proving discrimination?

To prove discrimination, you must show that there is a connection (also referred to as the nexus or the link) between negative treatment that you experienced and one of the personal characteristics (or prohibited grounds of discrimination) listed in the the Code.  

Put another way, to prove discrimination, you need to show at your hearing that you were subjected to negative treatment because of your gender, place of origin, family status or any one of the Code-protected personal characteristics. Even if the discriminatory ground (e.g. your race) is only part of the reason (as opposed to the only reason) for the negative treatment, that is enough to prove discrimination under the Code.

Answering the following questions can help you determine if you have experienced discrimination that can be proved in a hearing before the Tribunal. To make this clearer, we have used the example of disability but the same questions can be asked in relation to any of the personal characteristics listed in the Code.

  1. Do you have a personal characteristic (such as a disability) that is listed as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code?
  2. Were you treated differently than others?
  3. Or, if you were treated the same way as others, did this put you in a different position or have a different impact on you because of your disability?
  4. Did this have a negative impact on you? (or put you at a disadvantage compared to others?)
  5. Is there evidence to show a link between the negative treatment or the negative impact that you experienced and your disability?   

In many discrimination cases, there is no dispute about questions 1 to 4 above.   The last question is often the most difficult factual issue for the Tribunal to determine: were you treated negatively because of your disability (or any other personal characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code).

Before you file a discrimination claim, you should consider whether the Tribunal will be able to answer these five questions in your favour.   This Information Sheet will help you understand some issues that could arise in answering the questions.

Is the negative treatment connected to a protected characteristic under the  Code? 

An applicant may be treated negatively for reasons unconnected to a Code-protected personal characteristic. As discussed above, a key consideration in a Tribunal hearing is whether there is a connection between an applicant’s protected characteristic under the Code and negative treatment that they have experienced.  

For example, if an employee who identifies as Arab-Canadian is terminated from her employment, she will be able to show at a hearing that she is a person with a personal characteristic (her race) that is listed in the Code as a prohibited ground of discrimination.   This fact will likely be undisputed at the hearing, which means that the employer is unlikely to take a position that the employee is not a racialized person.   And if she is the only employee who is fired at that time, she will be able to prove that she was treated differently from other employees and that the impact (ie unemployment) was negative.

However, this will not be enough to prove discrimination at the hearing.  The applicant must bring factual evidence to the hearing to demonstrate the connection between her race and the termination.  This would include her own testimony at the hearing about how she was treated as an employee.

Is it always discrimination if I am treated differently because of a Code-protected personal characteristic?  

Not all differences in treatment are negative and not all negative treatment is discriminatory.  Sometimes the person alleged to have discriminated (usually an employer, landlord or business) will question whether the applicant was really harmed by being treated differently.   To find discrimination, the Tribunal has to decide whether the conduct or treatment was truly negative in its impact.  

Even when a person is treated differently, the Tribunal can find that the different treatment did not have a negative impact on the person of a kind that would amount to discrimination under the Code.  

An example might be a situation where an employed Canadian-born white man is not allowed to register in a community program designed to help racialized immigrant women who are isolated at home.  In this case, the man is treated differently, because of his gender, race and place of origin, than a woman who qualifies for the program.  However, the difference in treatment would not be found to be discriminatory.  The man is not really harmed by not being allowed into a program that is designed to help individuals who are at a disadvantage by virtue of their recent immigrant status, gender and race.  Simply put, the Code is designed to help disadvantaged individuals and groups, not those who enjoy a relative advantage.

The term “substantive discrimination” was developed by human rights tribunals and the courts to describe negative treatment that impacts on individuals who are already disadvantaged.  The Code does not aim to eliminate all differences in treatment. The purpose of the Code is to address differences or distinctions that have the effect of perpetuating disadvantage or promoting negative stereotypes about individuals who have a protected personal characteristic under the Code.

What is evidence?

In deciding a case, the Tribunal relies on the evidence presented by both sides at the hearing. The Tribunal weighs the evidence in making its findings of fact, considering its reliability and whether it is useful and relevant to the issues in dispute.  

Fact finding is a very important part of the Tribunal’s job.  Most cases are decided based on the facts. Each case is different and, while other previous cases may be similar, the facts of a particular case are often what drive the Tribunal’s conclusion about whether discrimination is proved or not. 

Facts are proved by evidence. Evidence comes in two main forms – oral and documentary evidence.  Simply put, oral evidence is what the applicant, the respondent and the witnesses say under oath at a Tribunal hearing – referred to as “testimony”. Documentary evidence includes written records as well as photographic, electronic or physical evidence.  Examples would be letters, e-mails, minutes of meetings, etc.  The Tribunal will only allow the parties to introduce evidence at the hearing if it is relevant to the issues to be decided.  

See the HRLSC’s Information Sheet on Disclosure and the Applicant’s Guide to Preparing for a Hearing for a fuller discussion of how to identify and prepare your evidence for your hearing. You will find examples of what evidence will be useful for you in preparing for a hearing.

What if there is no evidence that directly proves discrimination?   What is circumstantial evidence?

An applicant cannot always rely on testimony or written documents that directly demonstrate that their race, for example, or another personal characteristic in the Code, was one of the reasons why they were treated negatively.  The evidence in discrimination cases is often indirect evidence.   This is also called “circumstantial” evidence. Cases that rely on circumstantial evidence are more difficult for the Tribunal to decide 

Circumstantial evidence requires some reasoning in order to prove a fact. Circumstantial evidence often relates to a series of facts or events that together may prove that discrimination was a factor in the negative treatment at issue.  An applicant relying on circumstantial evidence will argue that discrimination is proven by the evidence as a whole, including related proven facts or events that, taken together, make it reasonable to conclude or “infer” that discrimination was at play.  

The Tribunal must decide what conclusions or inferences can be drawn from the facts that are proved by the oral and documentary evidence at the hearing. The Tribunal will consider if it is reasonable to conclude from its factual findings as a whole that the applicant experienced discrimination.  

In making its decision on the case, the Tribunal considers the evidence brought forward at the hearing by both sides, the applicant and the respondent.  In most cases, the respondent will present witnesses and documentary evidence to prove an alternative non-discriminatory explanation for the negative treatment.  

As an applicant, you must present enough evidence at the hearing to support the Tribunal in finding that it is more probable than not that you were treated badly because of a Code-protected personal characteristic. In preparing your case, you need to consider all the available facts and circumstances that point to discrimination. 

The ultimate issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether the evidence as a whole makes it more likely than not that the applicant was treated negatively because of a Code-protected personal characteristic.

How do I know if the Tribunal will find my witnesses credible?  What is reliable evidence?

The oral and documentary evidence presented at a hearing is assessed and weighed by the Tribunal with regard to both its credibility and its reliability.  The Tribunal assesses the sincerity of testimony as well as the witness’s ability to accurately observe, recall and recount the events at issue.  In making its decision, the Tribunal will not rely on the evidence of a witness who is not believable or credible. But even where a witness is credible and sincere, their evidence may be unreliable if, for example, their memory is impaired or they were not in a position to closely observe the events at issue. 

Findings about the credibility and reliability of evidence are a major element in many discriminations cases, especially when there is conflicting evidence before the Tribunal about whether or how an action or event occurred.

In determining issues of credibility and reliability, the Tribunal often cites the following excerpt from Faryna v. Chorny, (1952) 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.) at pages 356-357:

“Opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment and memory, ability to describe clearly what he has seen and heard, as well as other factors, combine to produce what is called credibility….

The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truthThe test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of the witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions…Again a witness may testify to what he sincerely believes to be true, but he may be quite honestly mistaken.” 

See Lugonia v. Arista Homes, 2014 HRTO 1531 for a recent Tribunal decision making reference to Faryna v. Chorny.

What if the evidence about the reasons for a respondent’s actions is in the respondent’s possession?

Respondents are uniquely positioned to know why they acted as they did, for example, in firing an employee or changing conditions of work.  As discussed above, the respondent’s evidence will be used by the Tribunal in determining what happened and why.

The Tribunal’s rules allow applicants to request documentary evidence in the respondent’s possession before the hearing. This is an important part of preparing for your hearing.

For information on how an applicant can obtain information and records in the respondent’s possession, see the HRLSC’s Applicant’s Guide to a Hearing and Information Sheet on Disclosure.

Does the protected characteristic under theCode have to be the only factor in an allegedly discriminatory act? 

No. An applicant does not need to prove that discrimination was the sole, or even the primary, factor in the negative treatment that gave rise to the application.  It is enough if one of the reasons for the treatment was discriminatory.

Where there are a number of reasons for negative treatment, your discrimination claim will be accepted by the Tribunal if you can show through your evidence at the hearing that a Code-protected personal characteristic was one of the factors in the negative treatment.

Do I have to prove the intent to discriminate? 

No.  You do not have to prove that the respondent consciously intended to discriminate against you.  An intent or motive to discriminate is not a necessary element in proving discrimination. The focus of the Tribunal’s enquiry is on whether the respondent’s actions had a negative effect on you. 

There is one type of Code breach that does involve proving the intention of the respondent. Section 8 of the Code prohibits “reprisal” against an individual for claiming or enforcing rights under the Code. This means an applicant must establish that a respondent engaged in an action which was intended as retaliation for claiming or enforcing a Code right. 

What level of proof do I need to meet? 

An applicant at the Tribunal bears the burden of proving that discrimination occurred.  This means you must be able to prove that it is more likely than not that the protected personal characteristic was a factor in the negative treatment that you experienced.  This is called the “standard of proof”.  In civil cases, including Tribunal cases, this means that you must prove your case on a balance of probabilitiesThis is sometimes described as “50% plus 1” probability. This is in contrast to criminal cases, where the burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

The Tribunal will examine the relevant evidence presented at the hearing by the applicant and the respondent to determine whether it is more likely than not that a violation of the Code occurred. Both the applicant and the respondent bear responsibility to bring forward evidence at the hearing to prove their position. 

The applicant bears the initial burden of establishing a basis for a finding of discrimination.   This is sometimes called a “prima facie” case. This means that an applicant at a hearing must produce their evidence first and must produce enough evidence which, if believed, would support a finding of discrimination. If the applicant does this, then the respondent must present evidence to disprove or “rebut” the applicant’s evidence. The respondent will bring evidence to the hearing to show its action were not discriminatory (or to establish a statutory defense under the Code which justifies the discrimination – discussed below). 

An example is helpful.  If your application alleges that disability was a factor in the termination of your employment, there are three initial components of your claim that need to be proved:

  • That you have a disability;
  • That you were fired, and other employees were not fired (i.e. negative differential treatment); and
  • That your disability was at least one of the reasons why you were fired.

With respect to the question of why you were fired, what you need is evidence of a connection between the termination and your disability.   Disability must be a factor in the termination of your employment.  Establishing that you have been terminated and that you are disabled may not be enough to make out your initial or “prima facie” case.  If that was enough, then every person with a disability who loses their job would be able to “prove” discrimination, even if the employer terminated the employment of all employees in the same position, included employees without disabilities.

In order to make out a case of discrimination, the applicant’s evidence must establish a foundation upon which the Tribunal could find that the applicant was negatively treated because of the prohibited ground under the Code (e.g. disability). If an applicant is only able to prove #1) and #2) above, then the applicant has not made out an initial case and the Tribunal may dismiss the application. 

Step 2: Preparing Your Evidence

The only information that the Tribunal can use to decide your case is the information that is introduced as evidence by the parties during the hearing.  The information in your application and other documents is not itself evidence but must be repeated at the hearing.  This means that it is very important for you to plan the evidence that you will submit at your hearing.  

What is evidence?

The Tribunal will accept many sorts of things as evidence in your case. Here are some examples of the different kinds of evidence:

  • Oral Testimony: The applicant and the respondent and witnesses can tell the adjudicator about the facts and situations at issue in the application.  This is called testifying. As the applicant, you can testify yourself and you can bring other people to testify at your hearing about events directly related to the discrimination.  A person who testifies for a party is called a witness.  You can ask questions of your own witnesses and you can question the witnesses presented by the other side.
  • Documents: In addition to oral testimony, witnesses can also submit written evidence at their hearing, provided that it is disclosed in advance of the hearing, as discussed below.   For example, if your application is about discriminatory conduct at work, and you received a letter from your employer discussing that conduct, you can ask the Tribunal adjudicator at your hearing to consider the letter as evidence, provided that when you testify, you can identify the letter as one that you received from the employer.
  • Other Documents (e.g., pay stubs, bills, leases, e-mails and contracts) can be submitted as evidence at your hearing. Note: Any documents must be disclosed well in advance of the hearing.  This is covered in Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, discussed further below.
  • Other Materials: Sometimes you might want to submit things like photographs or audio recordings as evidence at your hearing.  The person who made the photo or recording must provide evidence about when and how it was created.
  • Affidavits or Other Statements: In other circumstances, particularly if a witness is not available for the hearing, you might ask the adjudicator to consider a written statement made under oath or solemn affirmation called an affidavit.  However, oral testimony from a witness is always considered the most reliable evidence and is given the most consideration or weight by the adjudicator.  So if there is someone with important evidence in your case, it is much better to have the person attend the hearing as a witness.  You should use written statements as a last resort only.
  • Expert Evidence: You can also have an expert witness give evidence at your hearing. For example, a medical specialist might be an expert witness in a case about disability issues.  There are special requirements about who can be considered an expert. Expert evidence may be given in an affidavit, or a written report, but the Tribunal will usually require oral testimony from the expert as well.

For information on how and when you must file evidence with the Tribunal or disclose evidence to other parties, please see the section below called Step 3: Disclosing Your Evidence: Relevant Documents and Witnesses.

How do I decide what evidence to disclose? 

The Tribunal wants to hear evidence that is relevant to the events at issue.  This means evidence that relates to the issues in your Application, the Response and the Reply.    You want to provide the Tribunal with evidence that can prove the discrimination and its impact on you.  

In order to understand what evidence is relevant, keep in mind that, at your hearing, you will need to prove that:

  • the respondent(s) treated you differently or in a way that had a negative impact on you because of, or on the basis of, a Code ground of discrimination (e.g. race, disability, age, sex/gender, sexual orientation); and
  • as a result, you suffered a disadvantage or a loss, including a financial loss(e.g. loss of paid work) and/or a loss to your sense of self-worth and dignity (i.e. an emotional impact).  

In order to determine what evidence you need at your hearing, you should start by making a list of what happened to you. Remember to think in terms of each event or step in the negative treatment that you experienced.

It is very important that you review your Application, the Response and the Reply, if any.  These documents will help identify the events that you need to prove and the issues that you will need to address through evidence at your hearing.  For example, if the respondent is claiming that you are not a good employee, you should try to find and disclose evidence to contradict these claims, such as an email from a former supervisor that acknowledges something that you did well at work.

Once you have your list of the facts that you need to prove, you will need to make a second list of the witnesses or documents that you need to prove each fact.  Can you testify about each of the events or actions?  Are there witnesses other than you?   Is there someone who saw the discrimination and who might come to the hearing as a witness?  

For example, is there a co-worker, or former co-worker, who saw you being harassed at work because of your race or gender or sexual orientation?  Can your witness explain how you were treated differently?  Is there a witness who can talk about an event that showed that the negative treatment was because of your race, gender or sexual orientation, and not for some other reason?

What could happen if I do not disclose my documents and witness statements? 

You should be aware that failing to follow the Tribunal’s Rule 16 (exchange of documents) and Rule 17 (witness statements) may have negative consequences for your application, including dismissal of your case without a hearing.  Human rights applications are serious matters. The Rules exist and must be followed because the Tribunal has an obligation to ensure that both sides are dealt with fairly.  The failure to comply with a Tribunal rule or direction could result in the Tribunal dismissing your application and cancelling your hearing date(s).  

Do not assume that steps which you have already taken will be enough to satisfy the requirements of Rules 16 and 17.   With respect to documents, it is essential that the Tribunal be given, in advance, all of the documents that you are going to use at the hearing.  Rule 16.2 requires that you provide the documents to the Tribunal.  Even if you have previously provided documents to the Tribunal, you must do so again, or at least advise the Tribunal that you intend to rely on all of the documents you have already provided.

With respect to witness statements, they should provide details as to what each witness is going to tell the Tribunal.   This includes not just people who are going to testify on your behalf, but YOU as well.  You are a witness and you must file a witness statement for yourself.   If your application is detailed and clear, your witness statement may simply say that your evidence will be what you stated in the application.  

You must take these steps in order for the Tribunal to continue with your case.  If you cannot do so for some reason, you should contact the Tribunal and advise them of the reasons that you are unable to do so.  Neglecting to fulfill the disclosure requirements and failing to contact the Tribunal may be interpreted as abandoning your application.  The Tribunal may also refuse to allow you to introduce evidence at your hearing that has not been disclosed to the other side.  


https://canlii.ca/t/hz14r

Below is the Interim Decision, which is self-explanatory. It told me that the applicants, Kory Read & Allison Read, just did NOT provide any evidence to show that they were discriminated against. As their applications claim “discrimination with respect to housing, goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, family status, marital status, receipt of public assistance, association with a person identified by a ground listed above, and reprisal.”, not anything to do with “proof of Stella Reddy outright lying” as they wrote back. 

I believe by this point Kory Read lost the point and was only concerned with that he wanted to show, not anything else.

“We are unsure what it is that you are requesting in regards to arguments as we have supplied the HRTO in the neighbourhood of 300+ pages of arguments and hundreds of pages of case law and documents and numerous amounts of proof of Stella Reddy outright lying to the HRTO.”

 

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

INTERIM DECISION

______________________________________________________________________

Adjudicator:             Vandana Patel

Date:                          March 8, 2019    

File Numbers:         2018-32808-I; 2018-32809-I; 2018-32810-I; 2018-32811-I

Citation:                    2019 HRTO 415

Indexed as:              ER v. Liscio

____________________________________________________________________

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
)
ER and KR, as represented  by their Litigation Guardian, AR, and KR, Applicants ) ) KR, Representative
)
Luigi Liscio and Anthony Liscio, Respondents ) ) David Strashin, Counsel
)
Stella Reddy, Respondent  Self-represented

[1]           The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these four Applications should be consolidated and provide next steps.

[2]           Applications 2018-32808-I and 2018-32810-I are filed by the Litigation Guardian, AR, on behalf of her children. KR (“KR”) filed Applications 2018-32809-I and 2018-32811-I. KR is the father of the children and the husband of AR. All Applications are dated June 4, 2018 and allege discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

[3]           The Applicants live in a rental apartment in a building owned by the Liscio respondents through Alto Properties Inc. The respondent Stella Reddy (Reddy) was the property manager of the building.

[4]           By Registrar’s Letter dated August 3, 2018, the Tribunal proposed to consolidate all the Applications and hear them together. It directed the parties to file any written submissions in response to the proposal.

[5]           The applicants objected as does the respondent Reddy.

[6]           The Liscio respondents did not provide their position on consolidation. 

[7]           Reddy requested the two Applications against her be deferred because the issue was before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) and is now on appeal before the Divisional Court.  

[8]           The Liscio respondents requested a dismissal/deferral based on the completed LTB proceeding and raised the issue of delay.

[9]           The applicants were requested to provide submissions on the deferral request pertaining to all the Applications and on the issue of timeliness on the Applications against the Liscio respondents. The applicants opposed deferral of the Applications.

CONSOLIDATION

[10]        Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that the Tribunal may consolidate or hear applications together in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it.

[11]        The Tribunal generally considers the following factors when deciding whether to consolidate and/or hear Applications together:

  1. The public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, including considerations of expense, delay, the convenience of the witnesses, reducing the need for the repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results;
  2. The potential prejudice to the respondents that could result from a single hearing, including the lengthening of the hearing for each respondent as issues unique to the other respondent are dealt with, and the potential for confusion that may result from the introduction of evidence that may not relate to the allegations specifically involving one respondent or the other; and
  3. Whether there are common issues of fact or law.

See Persaud v. Toronto District School Board2008 HRTO 25

[12]        I find that these Applications should be consolidated. They raise substantially the same facts and issues and the applicants provided the same 268 pages of supporting documents for each Application. There is a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings in this case. Accordingly, the Tribunal will consolidate these Applications and hear them together.

[13]        Having reviewed the files, the Tribunal has decided to hold a joint preliminary/summary hearing to determine whether the Applications should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that:

  1. it appears that some or all of the allegations may be untimely;
  2. another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Applications;
  3. there is no reasonable prospect that the Applications or part of the Applications will succeed.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: DELAY

[14]        Under section 34(1) of the Code, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with an application filed more than a year after the incident, or the last incident in a series, unless it is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

[15]        The Applications filed on June 4, 2018 indicate June 2, 2018 as the date of the last event. The narrative of what happened in the Applications starts in 2015. The Tribunal will hear the parties’ submissions on whether all or part of the Applications should be dismissed for delay.

HAS ANOTHER PROCEEDING APPROPRIATELY DEALT WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATIONS (SECTION 45.1 OF THE CODE)?

[16]        It appears that the substance of these Applications may have been considered and appropriately dealt with in another legal proceeding.

[17]        The LTB granted the Landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy and evict the family in TEL-83876-17 (Re)2017 CanLII 84930 (ON LTB). That decision was appealed to the Divisional Court.

[18]        Consequently, there is an issue of whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code, which reads as follows:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

[19]        In preparing their submissions, the parties may wish to consider the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola2011 SCC 52, and Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board)2013 SCC 19, as well as previous Tribunal decisions considering s. 45.1, including Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board2013 HRTO 1298, and the cases cited in that decision. All Tribunal decisions can be accessed free of charge on the website of the Canadian Legal Information Institute at: www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/index.html.

3. IS THERE NO REASONABLE PROSPECT THAT ALL OR PART OF THIS APPLICATION WILL SUCCEED? (SUMMARY HEARING)

[20]        The applicants allege discrimination with respect to housing, goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, family status, marital status, receipt of public assistance, association with a person identified by a ground listed above, and reprisal.

WHAT IS A SUMMARY HEARING?

[21]        Where it appears that there is no reasonable prospect that all or part of an application will succeed, the Tribunal may determine it is appropriate to hold a “summary hearing” on that issue. The summary hearing gives an applicant an opportunity to more fully explain the allegations contained in the application. It also provides the Tribunal with the opportunity to hear arguments from the parties before it makes its decision. In some cases, such as this one, the Tribunal combines a summary hearing with a preliminary hearing dealing with other issues.

[22]        No witnesses are called to testify at a summary hearing and the parties are not expected to submit documents for the summary hearing. Instead, the Tribunal will make its decision based on the materials already filed by the parties and their submissions in the summary hearing.

[23]        The Tribunal will dismiss an application after a summary hearing, if it determines that there is no reasonable prospect it will succeed. In some cases, the Tribunal may find that only part of an application has no reasonable prospect of success and the Tribunal may permit the remainder of the application to continue in the Tribunal’s process.

Summary Hearing Issues to be Addressed

[24]        It is not clear the applicants have any evidence to establish a link between their race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, family status, marital status, receipt of public assistance, association, and reprisal or threat of reprisal and what the respondents have alleged to have done. That is, although the applicants may believe that the conduct of the respondents is connected to one or more of the above grounds, it is not clear that there is evidence available to prove the connection. The focus of this inquiry is on the evidence the applicants have or may be able to obtain. The applicants will be expected to explain what evidence they expect to be able to present at a merits hearing to support a link between the Code grounds identified in the Applications and what the respondents have alleged to have done

[25]        It is not clear that the issues raised in the Application falls under the CodeThe Tribunal cannot decide general allegations of unfairness unrelated to the Code. It is not clear that the applicants’ allegations against the respondents may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. The focus of this inquiry is on the legal basis for the applicants’ claim and whether or not there is any reasonable prospect the allegations may amount to a Code violation.

[26]        The section 8 reprisal protections only apply to the actions of a respondent that are intended as a reprisal for any of the following: (1) claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; (2) instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, (3) refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition2009 HRTO 32Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations2009 HRTO 273Noble v. York University2010 HRTO 878 at para. 31. To proceed with the Applications, there must be a reasonable basis to believe that the applicants could establish the respondents reprised against them for one of these three things.

ANONYMIZATION

[27]        The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Anonymization provides that the Tribunal may anonymize the name of a party to protect the confidentiality of personal or sensitive information where it is appropriate to do so. However, such an order is only made in exceptional circumstances. When determining whether to make an anonymization order, the Tribunal must balance the public interest in freedom of expression and open justice against any significant consequences of identifying the person requesting anonymization.

[28]        I find that it is appropriate to anonymize the Applications to safeguard and prevent the identification of the minor children involved in these matters.

ORDER

[29]        For the above reasons, the Applications are consolidated and the Tribunal will hear them together.

[30]        For the above reasons, the style of cause for this proceeding will be amended to refer to the applicants’ initials.

NEXT STEPS AND DIRECTIONS

[31]        The Registrar will schedule a half-day combined summary/preliminary hearing by conference call. The parties will receive a notice of hearing, setting out the time, date and telephone numbers for the hearing.

Additional Documentation, witnesses and case law

[32]        If the parties wish to refer to any additional documents in the hearing, they must deliver them to the Tribunal and each other no later than 5 weeks (35 days) after the date of this CAD.  Documents submitted for the hearing must be relevant to the issues identified above and avoid sending duplicates of documents already submitted at the Tribunal.

[33]        As noted above, no witnesses are called to testify for the summary hearing portion of this hearing. However, the parties will be permitted to call witnesses in relation to the delay and s. 45.1 issues listed above. If the parties wish to call witnesses to testify about the delay or s. 45.1 issues, they must deliver a witness list and a summary of the expected witness evidence to the Tribunal and to each other no later than 5 weeks (35 days) after the date of this CAD.

[34]        If the parties wish to rely upon any case law in the hearing, they must provide the Tribunal and the other parties a list of cases they intend to refer to in the hearing at least 14 days before the hearing. Parties are required to provide the other parties copies of the cases on their case list at the same time as they send them their list. Parties are not required to provide the Tribunal with copies of any cases that are publicly available on the CanLII legal website (https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/).

[35]        For additional information on summary hearings, please consult the Frequently Asked Questions document included with this CAD and the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests available on the Tribunal’s website at http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/rules-and-practice-directions/.

[36]        The applicants are directed to provide the Tribunal and the respondents with a copy of the judgement/decision with reasons of the Divisional Court with respect to their appeal of the LTB decision within 7 days of receiving the judgement/decision.

[37]        I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this  8th day of March, 2019.

“Signed by”

__________________________________

Vandana Patel

Vice-chair


This CAD received is not online so I can’t share a link as there isn’t one. I understand and appreciate why this letter was sent out by Human Rights during the process, as I already showed how Kory Read would constantly email HRTO to Triangulate me, such as in the email below.  Kory Read forwarded everything to HRTO, even items they wanted included in their files that came up during this process. How was HRTO to rule on anything if they kept submitting things to be included?

Yes there were times I got upset and emailed just them, for which they turn around and forward to HRTO with Subject: Please Place In File. Every time they did that, it slowed down the process, but of course it I was blamed instead. I have a lot of emails like that… The Tribunal is not a platform for the parties to heap abuse on each other. Kory Read was using HRTO as a 3rd party, to triangulate me with, in order to “heap more abuse” on me. I do know that most of the emails he sent after was not accepted and was ignored. 

Yep, I did some of my own as well, just like this site, as there comes a point where you have to stand up for yourself and fight back. I got so very sick of reading Kory Read personal opinions over every action and word I did, that I fought back.  I am still fighting! I have no one to answer to anymore, except myself and I am comfortable with my choices. 

I have learned though that it is in the past, all of it, and it is over. Nothing can change it, just accept it and move on!! Once I share my story, I plan on doing that!

It is emails like the below, that were not accepted… It was quite a bit!

From: kory@koryread.com <kory@koryread.com>
Sent: January 13, 2019 1:31 PM
To: HRTO Registar <hrto.registrar@ontario.ca>
Cc: >; David Strashin < >; Stella Reddy <sreddy@hotmail.ca>
Subject: Please Place In File

Thanks…

—–Original Message—–
From: kory@koryread.com <kory@koryread.com>
Sent: January 29, 2019 9:49 PM
To: HRTO Registar <hrto.registrar@ontario.ca>
Cc: David Strashin < >; Stella Reddy <sreddy@hotmail.ca>
Subject: Recordings…

Hello,

Just wanted to forward these recordings I have. I finally got them transcribed to paper. Sorry it took so long. Been busy with the Appeal.

Just confirms what was said, and what wasn’t said during our meetings. I also have a third one that I have

Case Assessment Direction

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO 

CASE ASSESSMENT DIRECTION

Adjudicator:             Douglas Sanderson

Date:                          May 31, 2019

File Number:            2018-32808-I; 2018-32809-I; 2018-32810-I; 2018-32811-I

  • In ER v. Liscio, 2019 HRTO 415 (“Interim Decision”), the Tribunal consolidated these Applications for hearing, anonymized the style of cause and set the matters down for a summary/preliminary
  • The Interim Decision gave the parties direction about the documents they may file for the summary/preliminary hearing. At this point in the proceedings the only documents the parties need to file are the documents they will use at the summary
  • Unfortunately, the parties have purported to file a great deal of material by e-mail that mostly consists of allegations of misconduct about their opposing parties. Rule 1.12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states “All written communications with the Tribunal, including e-mail correspondence, must be addressed to the Registrar, with a copy delivered to all other parties” [Emphasis added]. The parties have ceased complying with this requirement.
  • The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to managing the applications filed with it. The filing of an application with the Tribunal does not make the Tribunal the arbiter or referee for the parties’ relationships. The material the parties continue to file is irrelevant to these Processing the parties’ back and forth complaints is an unnecessary burden on the Tribunal and amounts to an abuse of process. The Tribunal is not a platform for the parties to heap abuse on each other. Further, documents not filed in accordance with Rule 1.12 do not form part of the Tribunal’s file and will not be considered by the Tribunal.
  • It is appropriate to refer the parties to Rules A7 and A8 of the Social Justice Tribunals of Ontario Common Rules:

A7

COURTESY AND RESPECT

A7.1

All persons participating in proceedings before or communicating with the tribunal must act in good faith and in a manner that is courteous and respectful of the tribunal and other participants in the proceeding. [Emphasis added]

A8

ABUSE OF PROCESS

A8.1

The tribunal may make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuse of its processes.

A8.2

Where the tribunal finds that a person has persistently instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted a proceeding in a vexatious manner, the tribunal may find that person to be a vexatious litigant and dismiss the proceeding as an abuse of process for that reason. It may also require a person found to be a vexatious litigant to obtain permission from the tribunal to commence further proceedings or take further steps in a proceeding.

DIRECTION

  • In order to be able to properly manage this matter, the Tribunal hereby directs the parties to immediately cease serving or filing any further documents or material in relation to this matter with the exception of documents to be used in the summary/preliminary hearing or unless specifically requested to do so by the Tribunal. Any documents the parties file in contravention of this direction or of Rule 1.12 will be discarded

Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of May, 2019.

Douglas Sanderson Vice-chair

Leave a Reply