HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Roystan Mangal
Applicant
-and-
Molson Toronto Brewery
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Mangal v. Molson Toronto Brewery
Appearances
Roystan Mangal, Applicant ) Self-represented
Molson Toronto Brewery, ) Sonia Regenbogen, Counsel
Respondent )
1This is a Decision in respect of an Application filed on June 8, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin and age.
2Initially, two individual respondents were included in this matter, but the applicant withdrew his Application against these respondents in the course of the hearing after the corporate respondent asserted that these individuals were acting in the course of their employment and accepted responsibility for the actions of these individuals.
3The applicant raised four allegations for the purposes of his Application. First, he alleged that he was denied opportunities to be trained for and take on work in areas of the plant other than the one in which he worked, while white temporary employees were offered training. Second, he stated that he was harassed by a white temporary employee, and that his supervisors did not investigate or make an attempt to verify his claim of harassment. Third, he stated that the respondent had made no attempt to clean a smell of urine from a dark, poorly ventilated area close to the area in which he worked. (Initially, the applicant stated that he was accused of refusing to work in that area, but he retracted this allegation during the course of the hearing). Finally, the applicant alleged that he was not re-hired in February 2009, after a layoff, while other white temporary employees were rehired.
4The respondent denied any discrimination in training, layoff, and rehiring decisions, and asserted that it had made appropriate attempts to clean the work area and investigate the spillage of urine. The respondent also asserted that he had conducted an appropriate investigation into the applicant's allegations of harassment, and that it had taken appropriate follow-up action.
5I have decided that the applicant has not proven a breach of the Code as alleged. My reasons follow.
THE RELEVANT LAW
6The initial evidentiary burden is on the applicant to establish that, on a balance of probabilities, a prima facie case of discrimination exists. See Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985 CanLII 18 (SCC)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc