HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Raymond Morton

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Sarnia and David Johnston

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: November 17, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1951

Indexed as: Morton v. Sarnia (City)

appearances BY

Raymond Morton, Applicant ) On his own behalf

The Corporation of the City of Sarnia ) Paula M. Rusak, Counsel

and David Johnston, Respondents )

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on January 6, 2009, which alleges that the respondents harassed and discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his disability and age. The respondents filed a Response on April 8, 2009, which denies the allegations of harassment and discrimination. The applicant filed a Reply on April 29, 2009.

2The hearing of the merits of the Application took place on November 2, 2009. Following the applicant’s presentation of his case, counsel for the respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The applicant opposed the request. I made an oral ruling dismissing all the allegations in the Application, except for the allegation that the respondents excluded the applicant from a training course in January 2008 because of his age.

3Following my ruling, the parties met privately to attempt to resolve the outstanding training issue. The parties subsequently made a joint oral submission to me, which declared that they had resolved the training issue. They also requested that I issue a written order dismissing all the allegations in the Application, except for the training issue, and that the Decision declare that the training issue has been resolved by the parties. I asked the applicant whether he agreed with my oral ruling with respect to his Application, and he stated that he did, except that he wanted a declaration that the training issue has been resolved by the parties.

4The parties’ joint request is granted. The following are my written reasons for disposing of the Application.

5The onus is on the applicant to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. A prima facie case is one which covers the allegations made and which, if they are believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a finding in the applicant's favour in the absence of an answer from the respondent: see Ontario Human Rights Comm. v. Simpsons-Sears, 1985 CanLII 18 (S.C.C.), at para. 28. Upon establishing a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a credible and rational explanation demonstrating, on a balance of probabilities, that its actions were not discriminatory.

6I found at the hearing that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to the allegation that the respondents excluded him from a training course in January 2008 because of his age, but not with respect to any of the other allegations in his Application. Prior to the respondents’ presentation of their evidence, the training issue was resolved by the parties. The Tribunal declares that the training issue has been resolved by the parties. There are no further outstanding issues between the parties.

ORDER

7The Application is dismissed in part. In view of the parties’ mutual resolution of the remaining issue in dispute, I find that the Application has been finally disposed of.