Vetharaniyam v. Timothy J. Tallon Inc., 2012 HRTO 1971

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ranjana Vetharaniyam

Applicant

-and-

Timothy J. Tallon Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: October 17, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1971

Indexed as: Vetharaniyam v. Timothy J. Tallon Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ranjana Vetharaniyam, Applicant

Self-represented

Timothy J. Tallon Inc, Respondent

Arthur P. Tarasuk, Counsel

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 age, ancestry, creed, disability, ethnic origin, family status, marital status, place of origin, race, sex, sexual solicitation and reprisal.

2The respondent has delivered and filed a Request for Summary Hearing and a Request for Order During Proceeding. The Request for Order raises essentially the same issues as are raised in the Request for Summary Hearing. In both, the respondents rely on what is claimed are patently false claims which completely undermine the applicant's theory of the case. The applicant disputes that she has made patently false claims. The Request for Order During Proceeding is denied at this stage The Request for Summary Hearing is also denied. The Tribunal's Rules provide that when a Request for Summary Hearing is denied the Tribunal need not give reasons. However as the Requests are both based on the respondent's assertions that the applicant has made patently false claims in her allegations, the following comments are appropriate.

3My reasons for denying these two Requests are essentially the same. While the respondents assert that the Application is premised on several patently false claims the applicant takes issue with the respondent's characterization of her claims in some instances and disputes the facts asserted by the respondent in respect of others. For example the respondents assert that the applicant claims she has been fired. The applicant denies that she has claimed that she has been fired, but does assert that there is a campaign to drive her from the workplace.

4In cases where there are competing accounts of what the facts are it may not be possible to determine without hearing some evidence whether there is no reasonable prospect of success that an Application can succeed. Similarly when the assertion is made that an Application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because it is based on patently false claims where there appears to be a dispute about the claims in issue, evidence will be required to determine whether an abuse of process has occurred. Accordingly at this stage of the proceeding or in a summary hearing process where no evidence is called sometimes these issues cannot be resolved. This of course does not mean that the Application has a reasonable prospect of success or that some or all of it may not be found to be an abuse of process, but that cannot be determined at this stage of the proceeding.

5I would also observe at this stage that while the applicant has claimed discrimination in respect of her family and marital status as well as creed, there is little in the Application that appears to relate to these grounds. This should be clarified prior to the hearing.

6The applicant has indicated that she is willing to participate in mediation. The respondent has not. The parties are directed to indicate whether they are willing to participate in mediation within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, failing which the Application will be scheduled for a two day hearing.

7I am not seized of this case.