Ziko v. Transat, 2011 HRTO 1865

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Grigor Ziko

Applicant

-and-

Transat

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: October 14, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1865

Indexed as: Ziko v. Transat

Appearances by Teleconference

Grigor Ziko, Applicant ) Self-Represented

Transat, Respondent ) Marilyn Mauricio, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application 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 goods, services or facilities on the basis of disability.

2By Case Assessment Direction dated May 9, 2011, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, directed that the matter be scheduled for a Summary Hearing pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. A hearing by teleconference was held October 12, 2011.

ANALYSIS

Summary Hearings

3The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The issue in a summary hearing is whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

4In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8-10, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:

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.

In considering what evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, the Tribunal must be attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, information about the reasons for the actions taken by a respondent are within the sole knowledge of the respondent. Evidence about the reasons for actions taken by a respondent may sometimes come through the disclosure process and through cross-examination of the people involved. The Tribunal must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that such evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination. However, when there is no reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities, the application must be dismissed following the summary hearing.

5As the Tribunal noted in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, at para. 17:

The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code or the intention by a respondent to commit a reprisal for asserting one’s Code rights.

Application to the Facts

6The basic facts of this case are not in dispute.

7The applicant was injured at work and participated in a WSIB program for re-entry into the workforce. He attended college for three years, graduating at the top of his class and signed on with Cascade Disability Management (“Cascade”) in order to secure a placement which would provide him with Canadian work experience.

8The respondent was contacted by Cascade and agreed to interview the applicant for an internship in human resources. The respondent arranges a variety of internships with various program providers like Cascade. The applicant cancelled his first interview because of illness but indicated that he was treated sympathetically by the respondent and was told that a second interview would be arranged.

9Before the second interview could be arranged, the applicant ceased to be a client of Cascade. The applicant was then informed by the respondent that because he was no longer a client of Cascade the internship could not be arranged.

10The applicant takes issue with the decision of the respondent not to offer him an interview just because he was no longer a client of Cascade. In his view, his status as a client of WSIB was unchanged and as a result the respondent should have followed through with the process in any event.

11It is not disputed that the respondent arranges internships through organizations such as Cascade rather than directly with WSIB. The only reason for refusing the applicant an interview was his status as a client of Cascade. The applicant may believe that this is unfair, but it is not discriminatory within the meaning of the Code.

12The applicant also alleges that he was discriminated against because the respondent discovered at some point in the process that he was disabled. Although the issue of his disability was never raised in discussions with the respondent, it was clear to the respondent from the name “Cascade Disability Management” that the applicant was likely disabled when he was given his first opportunity for an interview.

13There is no evidence to connect the applicant’s experience to the prohibited ground of disability. The respondent has provided a reason for not offering the applicant a second interview time – because he was no longer a client of Cascade – and the applicant has not provided any facts that would suggest this explanation was a mere pretext for a discriminatory action.

14Accordingly, there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed and it is dismissed.