HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shahin Shirmohammadi

Applicant

-and-

2121200 Ontario Inc., 2121812 Ontario Inc. o/a Ganz, Randy Langdon, Mohd Saheed Bin Maiden, Chris Kempling and Karen Butts

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: April 19, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 773

Indexed as: Shirmohammadi v. 2121200 Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shahin Shirmohammadi, Applicant ) Sajjad Najem, Representative

2121200 Ontario Inc., 2121812 Ontario ) Jed Blackburn, Counsel Inc. o/a Ganz, Randy Langdon, Mohd ) Saheed Bin Maiden, Chris Kempling ) And Karen Butts, Respondents )

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 15, 2010, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability, race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed and age.

2The applicant alleges that her employment was terminated because of her disability, and that the respondents failed to accommodate her special needs arising from her disability.

3The respondents dispute the allegations of discrimination related to disability but take no issue with any lack of particulars with respect to that ground. They claim, however, that they are unable to address allegations of discrimination because of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed and age because the Application provides “no information or evidence” connected with those grounds. The respondents also request an early dismissal of the Application on the basis that the WSIB has substantively dealt with the subject matter of the Application, the allegations of discrimination because of disability. In the alternative, they request a deferral of the Application because the applicant’s claim for income loss was denied by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”) and they had received correspondence from the WSIB indicating that she might be appealing the denial.

Deferral

4The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction dated January 6, 2011 (“CAD”) which directed the applicant to provide information about the status of the WSIB claim, including particulars about an appeal, whether and when it was heard and decided, and whether she continues to object to or appeal the decision of the WSIB on the claim.

5The applicant has since provided a decision from the WSIB dated May 28, 2009 (“the WSIB decision”) which denied loss of earnings and health care benefits for the reason that she was unable to establish that her injury involving one of her fingers and her elbows arose out of and during the course of her employment. The applicant has also since confirmed that she is not appealing the WSIB decision. The respondent’s Request to defer is therefore denied.

Section 45.1 of the Code

6Section 45.1 of the Code provides as follows:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

7The issue which the WSIB examined was whether the applicant’s injuries arose out of her work activity. The WSIB did not dispute the existence of injuries, but focused on where they arose. The issues raised by the Application, however, are different. The issues in the Application are whether the respondents terminated the applicant’s employment because of her disability, or whether they failed to accommodate her special needs arising from her disability. The fact that the applicant’s injuries or disability may not have arisen out of her work activities are irrelevant to these issues.

8Given that the WSIB did not deal with the issues before the Tribunal, the respondents’ Request to dismiss the Application on the basis that the WSIB appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application is dismissed.

Particulars

9The Application provides no facts with respect to allegations of discrimination on the grounds of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age, and provides no description of events related to those grounds. In the CAD the Tribunal stated that, if the applicant wishes to pursue her allegations of discrimination because of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age, she must describe with sufficient particulars the events upon which she bases her allegations within 30 days.

10The paralegal representing the applicant filed submissions that provided more details about the applicant’s allegation of discrimination because of creed, but only stated the following with respect to providing a description of what events allegedly constitute discrimination against the applicant because of race, place of origin, ethnic origin and age:

The Applicant experienced ill commends [sic] about her Iranian ethnicity by Mr. Langdon and her being lucky to have a job in the company. In two incidents the Applicant [sic] husband contacted Mr. Langdon to please not make bad comments and not to be aggressive and not to make joke [sic] about the Applicant [sic] religion, ethnicity and sex…

Notwithstanding that Mr. Langdon not eased [sic] or considered the Applicant’s husband [sic] request, he further increased her discriminatory comments and ignored the Applicant [sic] wishes.

Although the Respondent repeatedly admits that the Applicant was good in her job and she was a good person, the Respondent continuously made [sic] joke about her appearing [sic], religions and language…

The Applicant believes that if she was born in Canada or if she would have had different race [sic] then she would have been treated differently.

11It appears that Mr. Langdon made comments to the applicant with respect to her “Iranian ethnicity” and her language which may have some connection to her race, ethnic origin and place of origin, and that these comments provoked two contacts from the applicant’s husband. However, the particulars provided are still insufficient, and the applicant must provide written submissions with: 1) a clear description of the actual content of any comments; 2) the dates they were made, or, if not known, approximate dates; 3) where the comments were made; and 4) who made each comment. The applicant must file the submissions with the Tribunal and deliver them to the respondents within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin and place of origin.

12The respondents shall have 30 days from receipt of the applicant’s submissions to respond, after which point the Tribunal will schedule the Application for hearing and further directions may be issued.

13Given that no reference is made in the Application or the submissions filed by the applicant’s paralegal to link age to any of the incidents, comments or events described, the allegation of discrimination on the basis of age is dismissed.

14I am not seized of this matter.