Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Wayne Noel Widdis Applicant
-and-
Great West Life Realty Inc. and Manny Amorim Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: March 7, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 488 Indexed as: Widdis v. Great West Life Realty Inc.
Appearances
Wayne Widdis, Applicant ) Patricia Widdis, Representative Great West Life Realty Inc. and, ) Susan McCorquodale, Counsel Manny Amorim Respondents )
1This is an Application, filed on August 16, 2010, 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 harassment in employment because of race, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin.
2By Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") dated July 4, 2011, the Tribunal ordered, on its own initiative, a Summary Hearing. The CAD directed the parties to address whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application because it has no reasonable prospect of success, the corporate respondent's allegation that the Application is untimely pursuant to section 34(1) of the Code and whether the Application may proceed against the individual respondent's estate, as he is deceased. The Summary Hearing was held by teleconference on November 29, 2011.
The Application
3The narrative of the Application describes a workplace atmosphere of constant profanity laced with verbal abuse of the applicant by the personal respondent, now deceased. The Application sets out a series of incidents from January 2009 to October 2009, when the applicant took a leave of absence due to illness. The alleged incidents while highly inappropriate and demeaning do not appear to have any connection to a prohibited ground of discrimination, as they are described in the Application.
4The Application also sets out the dates on which the applicant's physicians provided him with notes regarding his absence from work, and described the contents of two of the notes as "Not ready to return to work as yet" and "Unable to return to work until further notice." The only note included with the Application indicates the applicant saw his doctor on May 31, 2010 and would be "unable to work for medical reasons from May 22 to July 30". According to a letter from the corporate respondent, also included with the Application, the applicant did not provide medical information supporting ongoing absence from work, as requested in a letter sent to the applicant on June 10, 2010, and the applicant was dismissed from his employment with the corporate respondent for failing to return to work from an unapproved leave of absence. Nothing in the Application indicates that the applicant responded to the respondent's inquiries or that the respondent suffered from a disability. Accordingly, there is nothing in the Application, on its face, that would support the applicant's allegation that the corporate respondent dismissed him because of discrimination on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Summary Hearings
5The 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.
6In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 8-10, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:
In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.
In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.
In considering what evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, the Tribunal must be attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, information about the reasons for the actions taken by a respondent are within the sole knowledge of the respondent. Evidence about the reasons for actions taken by a respondent may sometimes come through the disclosure process and through cross-examination of the people involved. The Tribunal must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that such evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination. However, when there is no reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities, the application must be dismissed following the summary hearing.
Applicant's Submissions
7During the Summary Hearing, the applicant submitted that he received no compensation for the termination of his employment. The applicant confirmed that the personal respondent subjected him to constant verbal abuse. He clarified that this abuse included "racial slander", as the personal respondent referred to him as "white and fat" on a number of occasions.
8Regarding the termination of his employment, the applicant contended that, contrary to the organizational respondent's assertion, he did maintain contact with work and provided medical notes to human resources.
Respondent's Submissions
9The corporate respondent submitted that the allegations set out in the Application have no connection to any Code ground. The applicant may have been subjected to unpleasant and rude behaviour, but such