<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
**B E T W E E N:**
Edward Reid
Applicant
-and-
Molson Coors Canada and Steve Ropp
Respondents
______________________________________________________________________
**decision**
______________________________________________________________________
**Adjudicator:** Keith Brennenstuhl
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
**Date:** February 28, 2011
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
**Citation:** 2011 HRTO 427
**Indexed as:** Reid v. Molson Coors Canada
______________________________________________________________________
**APPEARANCES**
Edward Reid, Applicant ) Self-represented
Molson Coors Canada and Steve Ropp, ) Hugh R. Dyer, Counsel
Respondents )
---
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
[1] This 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 reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to s. 8 of the Code.
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
[2] By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated December 13, 2010, the Tribunal directed that a Summary Hearing be held in this matter by teleconference. It stated as follows at paragraphs 6 and 7:
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 there is a reasonable prospect that he could prove that he experienced reprisal for participating in a human rights matter, and indicate the evidence he would use to establish that. In particular, he shall be prepared to indicate how his co-worker’s grievance proceeding involved human rights issues and explain why he believes that the respondents’ conduct was in reaction to the applicant’s involvement in the co-worker’s grievance process. The CAD also directed that the respondent did not need to file a Response prior to the summary hearing.
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
ANALYSIS
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## Summary Hearings
# [3] The 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.
# [4] In [Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2010/1994), at paras. [8-10](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2010/1994), 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
# [5] The applicant is employed by the corporate respondent, a brewer, as a delivery driver transporting the corporate respondent’s products. Apparently, the applicant showed up at a grievance arbitration hearing concerning a co-worker’s discharge and allegedly was threatened by the personal respondent that he would lose his job if he said anything about the arbitration hearing. The applicant also believes that his rights were violated when his union unilaterally decided not to proceed with his grievance against the corporate respondent.
# [6] The applicant alleges that he was subject to reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Code. Section 8 of the Code addresses the circumstances in which a person is protected from reprisal or threat of reprisal: “Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.”
# [7] The intention of section 8 is to ensure that applicants are not subject to negative consequences because he or she has attempted to enforce Code protected human rights or has participated in a human rights matter. However, the applicant has not alleged any facts within the scope of section 8 of the Code. The applicant does not allege that he attempted to claim or enforce his rights under the Code, that he instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or that he refused to infringe the right of another person under the Code. To the extent that the applicant did participate in his co-workers grievance arbitration hearing, there is no evidence that the hearing related to Code-protected human rights. On the contrary, the evidence is that the grievance arbitration proceeding related to serious allegations of work related misconduct on the part of the applicant’s co-worker.
# [8] It is evident that the parties are engaged in a number of work-related disputes and that the applicant feels that he has been treated unfairly by the respondents and his union. The Tribunal, however, is not a panacea for workplace disputes and general allegations of unfairness. The Tribunal’s authority is to determine whether there has been discrimination on a ground prohibited by the Code or a reprisal for asserting one’s Code rights.
# [9] In my view, there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 28^th^ day of February, 2011.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair
minicounsel