Majdi Afiouni v. Tradition Fine Foods, 2011 HRTO 396

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Majdi Afiouni

Applicant

-and-

Tradition Fine Foods

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: February 23, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 396

Indexed as: Afiouni v. Tradition Fine Foods

APPEARANCES

Majdi Afiouni, Applicant ) Self-represented

Tradition Fine Foods, Respondent ) Darren Cross, Representative )

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 employment on the basis of place of origin. The applicant identifies as a Canadian citizen who can speak Arabic.

2By Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") dated November 9, 2010, the Tribunal directed that a Summary Hearing be held in this matter by teleconference. It stated as follows at paragraphs 5 and 6:

In my opinion, the most appropriate procedure, given the issues raised in the Application, is to hold a summary hearing on whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, the Tribunal will schedule a half day summary hearing by teleconference.

The applicant will make his argument first. He shall be prepared to explain how he can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he experienced discrimination because of his place of origin, and the evidence he would use to establish that. Specifically, the applicant shall be prepared to explain why he believes that his pay and work days were reduced, at least in part, because of his place of origin. He shall also be prepared to provide specific details of the alleged "insults" and the alleged threats and blame from "Russian employees".

3The CAD also directed that the respondent did not need to file a Response prior to the summary hearing.

ANALYSIS

Summary Hearings

4The summary hearing process is outlined in Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. In a summary hearing, the issue 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 a part thereof will succeed.

5In 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.

Application to the Facts

6The applicant was hired by the respondent on a temporary basis through an employment agency. He claims that the respondent promised to hire him on a permanent basis at a higher rate of pay and with additional hours if he demonstrated that he had the appropriate skills. The applicant asserts that he had the appropriate skills and yet was never hired on a permanent basis. Instead, after three months, he was laid off together with a number of other workers. The applicant reasons that his failure to obtain a permanent position was discrimination owing to his place of origin.

7The applicant also claims that during his employment with the respondent, he was insulted by Russian employees who threatened that he would be fired. The applicant alleges that this mistreatment amounted to discrimination, as well, on the basis of place of origin.

8The power of this Tribunal is limited to dealing with applications alleging a violation of the Code, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on specific grounds. It does not have the power to deal with all claims of unfairness or all disputes between parties.

9When asked what evidence he had to support his allegations of discrimination, the applicant provided nothing beyond his bald assertions. He failed to provide any particulars as to how his place of origin was a factor in his failure to obtain a permanent position with the respondent. He also failed to provide any particulars as to the nature of the insults he allegedly endured or how they might relate to his place of origin. In summary, the applicant provided no evidence or particulars to connect his alleged mistreatment to his place of origin.

10Accordingly, there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed and it is dismissed.