The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed an application from a patron who alleged the St. Catharines Public Library discriminated against him based on age when it banned him from the facility and rejected his identification documents.
The tribunal found the applicant failed to provide any factual basis linking the library’s conduct to his age or other protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.
The applicant filed his application in August 2024, claiming discrimination on the basis of age and reprisal with respect to goods, services and facilities. He alleged the library issued him a temporary ban from September to December 2023 based on false accusations of sexual harassment, and that these actions were discriminatory.
The tribunal issued a request for additional submissions in September 2025, advising the applicant his application appeared to be outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The tribunal noted the applicant did not clearly explain why he believed the adverse treatment was because of his Code grounds, and that his narrative lacked any factual basis linking the respondents’ conduct to his protected characteristics.
Multiple allegations raised
The applicant made four main allegations. First, he claimed the library accused him of sexual harassment because of his Code grounds, resulting in the ban. Second, he alleged the City of St. Catharines failed to provide a solicitor during his meetings with the library concerning the ban. Third, he claimed the library accused him of sexual assault because he attempted to enforce his rights under the Code. Fourth, he alleged the library refused to acknowledge his proof of address and identification because of his age and because he was not an immigrant or “non-Caucasian.”
The tribunal found that even assuming the library’s accusations were false and it wrongfully issued a temporary ban, the applicant had not provided facts that could support a finding the library’s actions were connected to his Code grounds. “Without providing these facts, the applicant’s claims are no more than claims of unfairness and do not engage the Code,” the tribunal determined.
Reprisal claim rejected
Regarding the reprisal allegation, the tribunal noted that reprisal protections under the Code only apply to actions intended as retaliation for claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, instituting or participating in Code proceedings, or refusing to infringe another person’s Code rights.
The tribunal found the applicant had not provided facts showing he attempted to enforce his rights under the Code before the library issued the September 2023 ban or accused him of sexual harassment. The applicant provided emails dated October 2023 and onwards regarding issues with his identification card, but these were after the library had already issued the ban.
Identification document dispute
The applicant alleged the library denied him services despite presenting proper identification. He claimed he was treated this way because of his age, and that other patrons without acceptable identification were allowed to use the facility because they appeared to be immigrants or “non-Caucasian.”
Email correspondence showed the applicant attempted to provide the library with a Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario posting as identification to prove he worked in St. Catharines. The library rejected the document, determining it was unacceptable because the applicant could alter the information.
The tribunal found the applicant had not provided facts that could support a finding the library’s acceptance of non-government issued identification from other patrons was connected to his Code grounds. The tribunal noted the purported identification he presented was different from the ones he alleged others had tendered.
Procedural objections dismissed
The applicant raised several procedural objections, claiming the tribunal’s request for additional submissions constituted “reverse-onus ambiguous” demands and that it took 20 months for the tribunal to make “unsubstantiated demands for evidence.”
The tribunal rejected these assertions. “For the Tribunal to determine if it has jurisdiction, the onus is on the applicant to give sufficient details of the alleged discrimination by the respondents and articulate a link to the Code ground(s) being claimed,” the tribunal stated.
The tribunal noted it is not its task to absorb a mass of evidence and convert it into a properly pleaded claim, as such practice would put the tribunal in the position of being an advocate for a self-represented litigant.
The tribunal concluded the applicant had not explained how the respondents’ alleged actions were connected to any of his Code grounds. “Without such a connection, the allegations are no more than claims of unfairness that do not engage the Code,” the tribunal found.
The application was dismissed in its entirety.
For more information, see (Plaintiff) v. St. Catharines (City), 2026 HRTO 53 (CanLII).
