Georgakpopoulos v. Master Precision (No. 2)
2000-02-09
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the complaints by Dimitra Georgakopoulos, Zoiro Englezos and Anna Kouvas dated November 28, 1995, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed.
B E T W E E N :
Ontario Human Rights Commission
- and -
Dimitra Georgakopoulos, Zoiro Englezos and Anna Kouvas
Complainants
- and -
Master Precision, a division of Atoma International Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Anne McKellar
Date: February 9, 2000
Board File No: BI-0247/8/9-99
Decision No: 00-002
A P P E A R A N C E S
Ontario Human Rights Comission
William Holder, Counsel
Dimitra Georgakopoulos, Complainant Zoiro Englezos, Complainant Anna Kouvas, Complainant
Peter Georgakopoulos
Master Precision, a division of Atoma Inc., Corporate Respondent
Charles Robertson, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The Board is in receipt of the Commission's amended pleadings, filed January 23, 2000, and Respondent counsel's letter dated January 31, 2000, setting out his position with respect to those pleadings.
FACTS
The Respondent asserts that the pleadings as amended disclose no prima facie case of reprisal, in part because they rely solely on the Complainant's perceptions and beliefs with respect to the disciplinary actions taken in November, 1998. In Chowdhury, (October 31, 1995) (BI-0028-95) (Backhouse), a Board of Inquiry held that a complainant's reasonable perception that he was being retaliated against for filing a complaint was sufficient to found a contravention of s.8 of the Code. After all the evidence has been tendered, the Respondent's counsel may urge the Board not to apply the analysis in Chowdhury, or may argue that the Commission has not made out a case that any perceptions of the Complainant were reasonable. At this juncture, however, it cannot be said that the amended pleadings fail to disclose a prima facie case of reprisal, assuming all the allegations in them can be substantiated through evidence.
ANALYSIS
Although the Respondent also refers to s. 34(1) of the Code, that section does not appear to be pertinent to the matter before the Board, as it relates to the Commission's discretion not to deal with a complaint, and does not pertain to the Board's decision-making power.
DECISION
The Commission's Motion to amend the pleadings is allowed.
ORDER
The Respondent is directed to serve and file its amended Response by February 28, 2000, including any response to the Desired Remedy set out in the Commission's pleadings.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th February, 2000.
"Mary Anne McKellar"
________________________
Mary Anne McKellar