AEJ v Karen Rozema - [2022] QCAT 355

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

AEJ & Anor v Karen Rozema & Ors [2022] QCAT 355

PARTIES:

AEJ (BY GS)

(first applicant)

GS

(second applicant)

v

KAREN ROZEMA

(first respondent)

TOM ROZEMA

(second respondent)

TIGER BUN PTY LTD

(Third respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL049-19

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-Discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 October 2022

HEARING DATE:

17 December 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Acting Senior Member Fitzpatrick

ORDERS:

1.     Within 14 days of the date of this Order GS must provide the respondents’ legal representatives with details of a bank account of which GS is trustee for AEJ.

2.     Within 28 days of the date of this Order, the respondents Karen Rozema, Tom Rozema and Tiger Bun Pty Ltd must pay to AEJ the sum of $8,000.00 by depositing that amount by cleared funds into the bank account nominated by GS pursuant to Order number 1.

3.     Within 28 days of the date of this Order the respondents Karen Rozema, Tom Rozema and Tiger Bun Pty Ltd pay the sum of $5,000.00 by cleared funds to GS.

4.     The Order made on 17 December 2020 prohibiting publication of information that may identify the child applicant in this matter is continued.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS -DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – DIRECT DISCRIMINATION – INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION – where applicant child relied on an assistant dog and applicant mother handler of assistance dog – apartment managers required carriage of dog in common areas by shopping trolley – whether applicants treated less favourably than comparator – whether indirect discrimination – whether requirement reasonable – whether discrimination in provision of accommodation – whether request for information made on which discrimination could be based

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s7, s8, s9, s10, s11, s83, s84, s124, s133, s204, s205, s209, Schedule 1

Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act 2009 (Qld), Schedule 4

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s61

Australian Christian College Moreton Ltd & Anor v Taniela [2022] QCATA 118

CH v State of Queensland [2012] QCAT 536
Hunter v State of Queensland (2015) 179
Jackson v Ocean Blue Qld Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] QCAT 23
Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd (2016) FCAFC 130
Reurich v Club Jervis Bay Ltd [2018] FCA 1220
Woodforth v State of Queensland [2017] QCA 100

Yu Ping Xi v WorkCover Queensland [2016] QCATA 134

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

D Younger of Counsel instructed by Jacob Schuurmans-Stekhoven

REASONS FOR DECISION

Complaints

This proceeding relates to complaints of direct and indirect discrimination in the area of provision of accommodation and an unlawful request for information on which discrimination could be based.

Parties to the proceeding

On 19 August 2019 the then Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland (ADCQ) referred a complaint made by the applicant AEJ through his mother GS, as representative; and a complaint made by GS.
AEJ is a young person, his date of birth being 21 December 2005. By an order made 17 December 2021, the identity of AEJ has been made the subject of a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AEJ v Karen Rozema

Details

AGLC: AEJ v Karen Rozema [2022] QCAT 355
Case: [2022] QCAT 355
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AEJ, a child with autism who relies on an assistance dog, and his mother GS, brought a complaint against the respondents, who managed an apartment complex where the family stayed, alleging discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The respondents required AEJ and GS to transport the assistance dog in a shopping trolley and to exit the building with the dog via the basement car park, which they claimed caused distress to AEJ and GS. The court considered whether this treatment amounted to direct or indirect discrimination and whether it contravened provisions about the provision of accommodation or the requirement to supply information on which discrimination could be based.

The court found that while the treatment was discriminatory, it did not amount to direct discrimination as AEJ and GS were not treated less favourably than other guests with dogs. However, the requirement to transport the assistance dog in a trolley and exit via the basement car park amounted to indirect discrimination as it imposed a condition that caused disadvantage to AEJ and GS, was not reasonable, and could be complied with by a higher proportion of people without an assistance dog. The court did not find a contravention of the provision prohibiting requests for information on which discrimination could be based as there was insufficient evidence to establish that such questions were asked.

The court awarded compensation to AEJ and GS for the distress and humiliation they suffered and ordered the respondents to pay the compensation to a bank account nominated by GS as trustee for AEJ. The court also continued a non-publication order to protect AEJ's identity.

Orders