Levy v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2011 HRTO 1455

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Loyton Levy

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: August 3, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1455

Indexed as: Levy v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

Loyton Levy, Applicant ) Self Represented

Toronto Transit Commission, Respondent ) Marni Tolenski, Counsel

BACKGROUND

1The Applicant filed an Application February 7, 2011, pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination based on race and indicates as the social area of discrimination “Goods, Services or Facilities”.

2In correspondence to the Tribunal dated June 28, 2011, the respondent made the following assertions:

…we believe the Application is incomplete and/or being pursued based on an incorrect area of discrimination….

…The Applicant, a TTC employee, has alleged discrimination in goods, services or facilities. His complaint pertains to his access to certain washroom and lunchroom facilities of the TTC which are not available to the general public, but rather, are employee washroom facilities. Furthermore, it appeared from a review of the Application that the Applicant’s complaints arise in the course of his employment with the TTC.

3By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) of July 5, 2011, I requested the applicant provide written submissions responding to the issue of whether the Application is more properly framed as engaging the “employment” provisions of the Code rather than the “goods, services or facilities” section.

4On July 12, 2011, the applicant filed a response to the CAD requesting that the Application be amended to reflect discrimination in the employment context rather than with respect to “Goods, Services or Facilities”.

5The applicant also requested that the Amalgamated Transit Union be added to the application as an interested party.

DECISION

6Both the applicant and respondent are in agreement that the Application be amended to reflect an allegation of discrimination in “employment” rather than with respect to “Goods, Services or Facilities”.

ORDER

7On consent, pursuant to Tribunal Rule 1.7 c), section 6 of the Application (“Area of Alleged Discrimination”) is amended to reflect “Employment” as the social area of alleged discrimination rather than “Goods, Services or Facilities”.

8I find that the applicant’s union, Amalgamated Transit Union, is potentially affected by this proceeding and as such is entitled to receive notice of the proceeding. The Tribunal Registrar shall send a copy of the Application to Amalgamated Transit Union.

9The respondent shall deliver a Response (Tribunal Form 2) to the applicant and file it with the Tribunal within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Interim Decision. If the respondent fails to comply with this order within the allotted time, the Tribunal may take any and all actions available to it pursuant to Tribunal Rule 5.5, without further notice to the respondent.

10I am not seized.