Jacqueline Morris v. Amica Lifestyle and Amica Mature Lifestyles, 2012 HRTO 1825

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jacqueline Morris

Applicant

-and-

Amica Lifestyle and Amica Mature Lifestyles

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: September 25, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1825

Indexed as: Morris v. Amica Lifestyle and Amica Mature Lifestyles

APPEARANCES

Jacqueline Morris, Applicant

Self-represented

Amica Mature Lifestyles, Respondent

Mark Lugowski, Representative

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 with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry and ethnic origin.

2The respondent operates a senior’s residence and the applicant was employed as a Nurse from September 2011 to February 10, 2012. The applicant alleges that the termination of her employment was discriminatory and that her race and colour were factors that contributed. The applicant self-identifies as a Black woman. The respondent denies that the termination of employment was in any way discriminatory. The respondent asserts that the termination of employment was related only to performance issues.

3The Application was delivered to the respondent which filed a Response. The respondent subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings requesting a summary hearing. That Request was granted in a Case Assessment Direction dated June 14, 2012.

4As noted in the Case Assessment Direction, the issue in a summary hearing is whether the Application should be dismissed on the grounds that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application could succeed if it were the subject of a full hearing at the Tribunal. If the Tribunal allows an Application to proceed after a summary hearing, it does not mean that the Tribunal has made any finding about the merits of the Application. It generally means that the Tribunal has found that the applicant has made allegations which, if true and proved, could lead to a finding that the applicant’s Code-protected rights were infringed, and that the allegations are sufficiently plausible that it cannot be said that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application could succeed.

5The Tribunal’s Rule 19. 6 states that where the Tribunal decides not to dismiss an Application following a summary hearing, it need not give reasons.

6The summary hearing was held on September 20, 2012 by telephone conference call. The applicant participated and the respondent was represented by Mark Lugowski who at the relevant time was the respondent’s human resources manager.

Conclusions

7Based on the documents submitted by the parties and the information provided at the summary hearing, I find that it cannot be said that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. The Application is not dismissed at this time and the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.