Sonnilal v. Toronto East General Hospital, 2012 HRTO 1605

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Sonnilal Applicant

-and-

Toronto East General Hospital Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: August 22, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1605 Indexed as: Sonnilal v. Toronto East General Hospital

APPEARANCES

Sharon Sonnilal, Applicant Self-represented

Toronto East General Hospital, Respondent Sven Poysa, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment because of family status and marital status.

2By Case Assessment Direction (CAD) dated December 29, 2011 the Tribunal, on its own initiative, scheduled this matter for a Summary Hearing pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The hearing took place by telephone on August 16, 2012.

3The Summary Hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The issue in a Summary Hearing 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 part of the Application will succeed.

4In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8-10, the Tribunal observed that in some cases, the focus of the summary hearing will be on the legal analysis and whether the allegations could reasonably be considered to amount to a Code violation. In other cases, the focus will be on the applicant's ability to point to evidence which is reasonably available which would demonstrate a link between the actions of the respondent and the prohibited grounds alleged by the applicant. The Tribunal also emphasized the importance of being attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, the respondent may be in possession of most or all of the evidence related to the applicant's allegations and it may be appropriate to give the applicant the opportunity to acquire that evidence through disclosure and cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses.

5As the Tribunal noted in Forde v. Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17 the Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness and that there must be a basis for the allegations beyond mere speculation.

6In the CAD of December 29, 2011 the applicant was also advised that the reprisal section of the Code only applies to actions that are intended as a reprisal for asserting one's human rights. See Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. 31. To proceed with the Application, there must be a reasonable basis to believe that the applicant could establish such intention and a link to the respondent's alleged actions.

ANALYSIS

7The applicant was given an opportunity to make submissions to assist the Tribunal in determining whether her Application should proceed.

8The applicant worked for the respondent as a Registered Practical Nurse (RPN) on a part time basis from October 1998 until sometime in 2005 when she began working in the same capacity on a full time basis. The applicant has not worked for the respondent since her termination August 11, 2011.

9The applicant was an RPN when she commenced employment with the respondent and subsequently became a Registered Nurse (RN) in 2009. She alleges that she was treated unfairly in the course of attempting to move from an RPN position to an RN position with the respondent.

10The applicant alleges that initially she was encouraged by the administration of the hospital and her immediate supervisor to pursue the educational opportunities available to become an RN. She suspects that the managers who would be in a position to hire her as an RN have changed their attitude toward her as a result of events which occurred in 2009. In her oral submissions during the hearing the applicant alleged that in 2009 the respondent was undergoing organizational changes which resulted in changes in shift schedules for many employees. The applicant is a single mother and in response to the changes she provided the respondent with medical evidence supporting her need to maintain her current schedule. The applicant alleged that she was not supported by the managers involved and suspects that this is one of the reasons for her termination in 2011.

11The applicant alleges that she ultimately became very upset with her inability to secure a position as an RN. She took vacation in the summer of 2011 and then asked to have her vacation extended. She alleges she received a telephone call from her manager who approved her vacation extension to August 5, 2011. The applicant alleges that she received a call from the same manager on August 4, 2011 who denied extending her vacation and asked why she was not at work. The applicant describes herself as "irate" at this manager because of her belief that he was not being truthful about the extension of her vacation.

12Shortly after the call from her manager the applicant wrote to senior administrative staff and the manager in question setting out her concerns about not being hired as an RN and asking for a resolution. When she was asked about this correspondence during the hearing she did not allege that she raised the issue of discrimination. She alleges that she offered to work part time if that would open up more opportunities for working as a RN. The applicant alleges that she received a letter of termination without cause dated August 11, 2011 without prior warning.

13The applicant has been working for an agency as a RN since shortly after her termination. She alleges that her workplace experience with the respondent has taken a significant toll on her health and family life. She indicated that she filed her application with the Tribunal because she did not know where else to go to seek redress for her experiences.

14What the applicant alleges in her Application are events which, if believed, describe experiences of unfairness which the Tribunal is not empowered to resolve. In order to proceed before this Tribunal, there must be evidence which is reasonably available to the applicant, which supports a connection between the actions of the respondent and the grounds alleged. Here the grounds alleged are family status and marital status.

15The basis for the applicant's allegations that the respondent engaged in reprisal and discrimination is her belief that her requests in 2009 to maintain her shift schedule were factors in her failure to secure an RN position and in her termination. However, the applicant is unable to demonstrate that there is evidence which would reasonably be available to her, beyond her own suspicions, that the actions of the respondent, intentional or otherwise, were based in part on the prohibited grounds of family status and marital status. As a result, the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

16Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.