Antropov v. C.U.P.E. Local 3902, 2011 HRTO 1119

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexander Antropov Applicant

• and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3902, Jamie Levin, Anne Cope, Rebecca Sanders, Rene Salazar and Robert Ramsay Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie

Date: June 8, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1119

Indexed as: Antropov v. C.U.P.E. Local 3902

APPEARANCES wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alexander Antropov, Applicant (Self-represented)

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3902, Jamie Levin, Anne Cope, Rebecca Sanders, Rene Salaza and Robert Ramsay, Respondents (Chris Bryden, Counsel)

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in a voluntary association on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin. The Application relates to events in an election of union officers in April of 2010.

2The respondents requested a Summary Hearing under Rule 19A.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, alleging that there was no reasonable prospect of success of the Application. The respondents also requested that the personal respondents named in the Application be removed. The request for a Summary Hearing was granted by the Tribunal in a Case Assessment Directive (the "CAD") issued February 14, 2011.

3The CAD stated that the Summary Hearing would determine whether the Application, in whole or in part, has no reasonable prospect of success. The CAD also set out the following from Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paragraphs 8 and 9:

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

4The CAD also stated that the request to remove the personal respondents would be considered during the Summary Hearing, if necessary.

5The Summary Hearing was held on May 16, 2011, by teleconference. The respondent had provided detailed written submissions in its request for a summary hearing and the applicant replied to the request in writing. I have considered the written and oral submissions of the parties in this decision. I also heard the submissions of the parties on the removal of personal respondents.

Background

6The main respondent is the certified bargaining agent for post doctoral fellows, undergraduate students and graduate students at the University of Toronto who occupy teaching positions, such as teaching assistants and part-time lecturers. The named respondents are all either union officers or employed by the respondent.

7The applicant is a member of the bargaining unit and, at the time relevant to this Application, he was a union steward with the respondent. The applicant self-identifies as being of Russian origin.

8The applicant was running for an elected position on the executive of the respondent. In his Application, he has raised two incidents that he alleges show discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin. The first relates to a faulty hyper-link in an email sent to all union members. The second relates to an all-candidates' meeting where the applicant alleges he was insulted by a union steward, Jamie Levin (one of the named respondents).

9On April 21, 2011, an email was sent to all union members with hyper-links to the biographies and platforms of all candidates in the election. The applicant alleges that the hyper-link for his biography and platform was a broken link, whereas the links for four non-Russian candidates were not. The hyperlink for a candidate running for the same position as the applicant was also broken. That candidate did not request that a corrected hyper-link be sent. The respondent agrees that the link for the applicant was broken for some of those who received the email message, but states that it worked for others. The applicant disputes that the link worked for some recipients.

10The applicant requested that the corrected hyper-link be re-sent to all voters but his request was refused. The main respondent told the applicant that it would not re-send the message because the polling stations would soon be closing; the link of the other candidate had a similar problem so both candidates were equally affected; and the problem was occurring only on certain computers and appeared to be functioning on other computers. The applicant asserts that these reasons given by the main respondent at the time were false.

11The second incident relied on by the applicant occurred on April 20, 2010 during an all-candidates' session before the Stewards' Council. The applicant alleges that Mr. Levin yelled at him in an "intimidating and offensive manner, publicly harassing, humiliating" him and "undermining his dignity". He also alleged that Mr. Levin accused him of bribery. The applicant has also alleged that union officers who were in charge of the meeting should have intervened in accordance with the union constitution and bylaws (those officers are also named as respondents). The applicant does not allege that any negative comments made at the April 20, 2010 session were specifically about his ethnic origin. However, he claims that the comments of Mr. Levin at the candidates' meeting were made because of the applicant's self-described imperfect English. The applicant claims that his language skills are inseparable from his place of origin.

12The respondents submitted that since the same technical problem with the link arose with respect to another candidate for the position, the applicant suffered no differential treatment. As a result, there is no basis for a finding of discrimination contrary to the Code. The respondents also submitted that the reasons given for not sending a corrected link were valid and also non-discriminatory.

13The applicant submitted that the differential treatment arose as a result of the request to re-send the link. The other candidate did not make the same request. It was the action of the respondents in refusing to re-send the link that was discriminatory.

14The respondents submitted that the allegations about the candidates' meeting do not suggest that the applicant was discriminated against on a prohibited ground under the Code. The respondents also submitted that allegations that the conduct of Mr. Levin and the other union officials was contrary to the union's constitution is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

DECISION

15In order to establish a prima facie case at a summary hearing, the applicant must establish that the allegations, if true, might reasonably be considered to amount to a violation of the Code. In addition, the applicant must establish that there is a reasonable prospect that he can prove the alleged violation of the Code by connecting the events described in his Application to the alleged grounds of discrimination, using evidence that he has or that is reasonably available to him.

16I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin or place of origin.

17In the hearing, the applicant stated that the discriminatory act by the respondents was its failure to send out a corrected hyper-link. The respondents did not send out a corrected hyper-link for the other candidate and therefore did not treat the applicant differentially. The fact that the other candidate did not request that a correction be issued is not relevant. The broken hyper-links were brought to the attention of the main respondent and it decided not to issue a correction for either candidate. There is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could demonstrate that a correction would have been issued for the other candidate and not for him, if the other candidate had also requested that a correction be issued. Further, the applicant did not show that he either had evidence or could reasonably obtain evidence that would demonstrate that the issue of the broken hyper-link was connected to his ethnic origin or place of origin.

18The events at the candidates' meeting, as described by the applicant, show a heated political discussion but no connection to the Code has been demonstrated. The applicant does not allege that the respondents made specific negative comments about his ethnic origin or place of origin. The applicant alleges that the comments at issue were made because of his self-described "imperfect English" and that his proficiency of the English language is inseparable from his place of origin. In some circumstances, where language is inextricably linked with one's place of origin, the Code may prohibit some forms of discrimination linked to one's language, such as speaking less grammatically or speaking with an accent: Segula v. Ferrante (1995), 1995 CanLII 18168 (ON HRT), 27 C.H.R.R. D/412. However, in this case, the applicant has not shown that he either has evidence or can reasonably obtain evidence that the comments directed to him by the respondents were linked with his ethnic origin or his place of origin, or that they were discriminatory within the meaning of the Code. Further, whether or not the comments directed at the applicant at the meeting were within the constitution and by-laws of the respondent is not relevant. Accordingly, the Application must be dismissed.

19The CAD stated that the request to remove personal respondents would be addressed in the teleconference hearing, if necessary. Since I have ruled that there is no reasonable prospect of success of the Application, I find that it is not necessary to decide on the removal of personal respondents.

20The Application is dismissed.