HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Symbah Ruremesha

Applicant

-and-

Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada, Paula Lansky,

Michael Morris, and Robin Layng

Respondents

Interim decIsion

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: October 5, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1815

Indexed As: Ruremesha v. Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada

[1] This is an Application filed on April 5, 2011, 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 employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and age. The Tribunal granted the respondents’ request for a Summary Hearing by Case Assessment Direction dated July 12, 2011. The Tribunal has not yet set the date for the Summary Hearing. The applicant filed an amended Reply on September 14, 2011.

[2] In a letter to the Tribunal dated September 27, 2011, the applicant requested that the Tribunal cancel the Summary Hearing on the strength of the additional information set out in his amended Reply. The respondents opposed this request in a letter to the Tribunal dated September 30, 2011. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider whether the Tribunal should proceed with a Summary Hearing in this matter.

[3] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal will proceed with a Summary Hearing.

[4] In his amended Reply, the applicant describes some evidence that may establish a reasonable prospect of success regarding some parts of his Application. However, the applicant largely asserts that many of the statements of fact set out in the respondents’ Response are untrue. The Tribunal, however, ordered a Summary Hearing based on an assessment of the Application and the Response and directed the applicant to point to the evidence that would “prove a link between the respondents’ actions and the grounds cited, given the explanation of events in the Response”. Consequently, a mere denial of the respondents’ explanation is not sufficient. The applicant must describe what he believes to be the accurate version of events, the evidence he would use to establish these facts and how it establishes discrimination.

[5] The applicant also states that he has witnesses to establish several of his allegations, but does not describe what that evidence will be and how it links the respondents to prohibited grounds of discrimination. I agree with the respondents’ submission that the colour of the applicant’s skin is not sufficient to establish link between allegedly adverse employment-related results for him and prohibited grounds of discrimination. Rather, the applicant must describe the evidence that would allow the Tribunal to conclude that the negative outcomes he experienced were the result of prohibited discrimination. In these circumstances, a Summary Hearing remains appropriate.

[6] At the Summary Hearing, the applicant will have the opportunity to describe the evidence he has and explain how it establishes a link to a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Tribunal shall proceed with a Summary Hearing in this matter, as ordered in the Case Assessment Direction of July 12, 2001.

Dated at Toronto, this 5^th^ day of October, 2011.

“Signed by”

Douglas Sanderson

Vice-chair