Thompson v. Anthony, 2012 HRTO 1866

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Vincent Thompson

Applicant

-and-

Anushika Anthony

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: October 1, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1866

Indexed as: Thompson v. Anthony

APPEARANCES

Vincent Thompson, Applicant

Self-represented

Anushika Anthony, Respondent

Kelsey Orth, Counsel

Introduction

1This is a decision in respect of 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, color, ethnic origin and sex. Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) dated March 26, 2012 and Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it would succeed.

2A teleconference summary hearing was held on June 11, 2012. I heard from the applicant who was unrepresented and from counsel for the respondent, Mr. Orth. The respondent made representations upon which the applicant was allowed to comment. I have concluded that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

3The applicant applied for employment with a corporation owned by the respondent. His Application states a belief that he was discriminated against because he is a white man and the office that he saw did not appear to have any male staff or staff who were of “Caucasian” descent.

4The applicant filed four e-mails. The first was his November 16, 2011 request to be considered for a Lawyer Assistant position. The second, dated November 22, 2011 at 6:46 PM, was from the office of the respondent; it requested that the applicant send a resume. The third, also from the respondent and dated November 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM reads “Hi Vincent: I would like to book you a meeting with the recruiting manager on December 20 at 1 PM.” The e-mail identifies the location of the office in Vaughan, Ontario, and includes: “Please confirm your attendance.” The applicant’s responding e-mail, dated November 22 at 7:35 PM, states only that the applicant has enclosed his resume and asks that the respondent let him know if any further information were needed.

5I gave the applicant an opportunity to look for any e-mail that would more clearly confirm when and where he was going to attend for his interview. However he indicated that he could not produce a more explicit e-mail. However the respondent did not disagree that the applicant’s e-mail should be understood to have confirmed his attendance on December 20 at 1 PM.

6The applicant stated that when he attended at the office of the respondent he gave his name to the receptionist, who then disappeared and returned to tell him that he had no appointment for an interview that day. While the applicant admits he did not enter the respondent's premises farther than the reception area, he states that he saw 6 to 8 persons whom he assumed were employees in that area, all of whom were female and none of whom was “Caucasian”. He stated that the receptionist did not appear to be taking the situation seriously and that she was laughing with the other women whom the applicant considered were employees.

7I asked counsel for the respondent why the interview had not taken place. Counsel for the respondent indicated that the respondent has two offices; one on Queen Street in Brampton and the other at Steeles Avenue in Vaughan. The office at Queen Street was the office for which an interview was booked for the applicant; however the employee who sent the e-mail gave the applicant the wrong address.

8Counsel for the respondent also stated that the respondent employs some 15 people, with at least four men in the work force, one of whom he understands is “Caucasian” in the sense that word is used by the applicant.

9The applicant admits that his suspicion that discrimination might have been at play in his case was based entirely on “the optics” of his experience in the reception area of the respondent's business premises, and the fact that the respondent did not follow up when he failed to attend for the interview.

10While the applicant would have had me place significance on the fact that the respondent did not follow up when he failed to attend for the interview, counsel for the respondent indicated that it is not uncommon for people not to show up for an interview, and that, while it might be better business practice to follow up, it was simply not done. The applicant could suggest no other evidence that would indicate that this was other than a mistake.

11The applicant had no other evidence to offer. His evidence establishes that he did not receive an interview, but the respondent has offered an explanation for this and the applicant has offered no evidence that would rebut that explanation. There is no allegation or evidence that the respondent was aware of the applicant’s personal characteristics when he was given the address of the wrong office. The applicant’s only evidence relevant to the allegation that the respondent does not hire “Caucasian” men is based solely on his impression of characteristics of persons he assumed to be the respondent’s staff, in one of the respondent’s offices. In the circumstances, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application can succeed.

12The Application is dismissed.