Maria Grazia Voss v. Garda of Canada, 2011 HRTO 2288

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maria Grazia Voss

Applicant

-and-

Garda of Canada, Satwant Grewal and Jason Mulhall

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: December 21, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2288

Indexed as: Voss v. Garda of Canada

APPEARANCES

Maria Grazia Voss, Applicant ) Self-represented

Garda of Canada, Respondent ) Michelle Ralston and ) Gordon Shantz, Representatives

1This Application alleges discrimination in employment based on race, colour and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2On July 13, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing that a summary hearing be held by teleconference pursuant to Rule 19A of its Rules of Procedure. The Application was served on the respondents at the same time as the Case Assessment Direction notifying the parties of the summary hearing. The respondents were advised that it was not necessary to file a Response at that time.

3Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure read as follows:

19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an 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.

19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure or witness statements.

4Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out in the Tribunal's decision in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, as follows:

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.

5In its July 13, 2011 Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal indicated that having reviewed the Application, it appeared that the applicant may be unable to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a link between the respondents' alleged actions and a Code ground.

6The summary hearing was held on December 19, 2011. During the summary hearing I heard from the applicant and the corporate respondent.

7At the hearing the applicant provided her theory of the case. She stated that the complaints made by Salwant Grewal, the personal respondent, about her supervision were, in some measure, because she was a white female and that when she brought her concerns about why Mr. Grewal may have complained about her to the attention of her supervisor, Jason Mulhall, the other named personal respondent, she was simply told not to worry about Mr. Grewal and that her job was safe. The applicant went on to state that she reiterated her concerns about Mr. Grewal's actions, including her concern that these actions may be related to her being female and white to more senior staff of the corporate employer. However, she stated that the corporate respondent ultimately responded to her work situation by offering her a different position in order to remove her from what the corporate respondent described as a poisoned work environment.

8The corporate respondent contended that the decision to move the applicant to a different position was based on having received a number of complaints from employees about the applicant and her management style, including complaints from female staff, and that this had given rise to a poisoned work environment. The corporate respondent submitted there was nothing improper, under the circumstances, in offering the applicant a comparable position elsewhere in the organization.

9At this stage of the Application, it is not appropriate to make any findings with respect to the applicant's allegations. I heard no sworn testimony, and the respondents have not yet been provided with the opportunity to submit a formal Response to the Application. It is sufficient to say at this point that the applicant has satisfied me that she may be able to establish a link between the events alleged to have occurred and the grounds upon which she made her claim. Therefore, I cannot find that there is no reasonable prospect that her Application will succeed. The Application is not dismissed and will continue in the Tribunal process.

10It appears that Jason Mulhall is no longer employed by the corporate respondent. In order to serve Mr. Mulhall, the corporate respondent is directed to provide the Tribunal and the applicant with Mr. Mulhall's current address and mailing address or, if it is not aware of the current address and mailing address, the most recent mailing address for Mr. Mulhall. The corporate respondent is directed to provide this information within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision. Once this information has been provided, the Tribunal will serve Notices of the Application to each of the respondents and will also provide a copy of this Interim Decision to Mr. Mulhall.

11I am not seized of this matter.