Gemma Ramlal v. Metro Ontario Inc. et al., 2012 HRTO 790

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gemma Ramlal

Applicant

-and-

Metro Ontario Inc., Zellers Inc., Sobeys Ontario, Jeral Magdan Foods Inc./ Tim Hortons,

Respondents

Decision

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: April 19, 2012

Indexed as: 2012 HRTO 790

APPEARANCES

Gemma Ramlal, Applicant ) Self-represented

Metro Ontario Inc., Respondent ) Dan Shields, Counsel

Zellers Inc., Respondent ) Meghan Ferguson, Counsel

Sobeys Ontario, Respondent ) Arlene Minott, Counsel

Jeral Magdan Foods Inc. /Tim Hortons, ) Rene Liebs-Benke, Counsel

Respondent )

BACKGROUND

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that the respondent Metro Ontario Inc. failed to promote her and eventually terminated her employment contrary to the Code. The applicant further alleges that the other respondents terminated her employment because of discrimination on the basis of the various grounds noted above.

2Pursuant to s. 43(2) of the Code and Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, a summary hearing by teleconference was held before me on March 26, 2012. The purpose of the summary hearing was to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that it would succeed. The Application was served on the respondents at the same time as the Case Assessment Direction notifying the parties of the summary hearing. The respondents were advised that it was not necessary to file Responses at that time.

3The applicant participated in the summary hearing. All responding parties also participated and made oral submissions. The Application and the respondent’s written submissions were also considered by me.

FACTS

4The pivotal facts are not in dispute. The applicant self-identifies as “South Asian/Brown, East Indian ethnic origin”. She was employed by Metro Ontario Inc. for some 31 years. She alleges that she was repeatedly passed over for promotional opportunities and her employment was eventually terminated in October of 2011. During 2011 she also had her employment terminated by the other respondent companies.

5In response to my request for particulars during the course of the hearing, the applicant provided no evidence that anyone concerned ever said anything directly about her race, colour, ancestry, place of origin or ethnic origin. There is thus no direct evidence of discrimination. However, the applicant alleges there is circumstantial evidence of systemic racism by the respondents but was not able to identify what specifically this evidence might be, apart from the fact that she felt discriminated against. She also admitted that she felt that her termination by Sobeys Ontario was at least partially due to management being threatened by her level of education. She also admitted that Zellers Inc. had “quite a few ethnic people in management”.

6During the course of the hearing the applicant asserted that she would be able to provide clear statistical evidence to prove her allegations at a hearing of the application on its merits. However, she admitted that her allegations were, “just a suspicion at this stage”.

ANALYSIS

7As noted above the hearing was convened pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. This Rule reads, in part, as follows:

19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an 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.

8The issue that Rule 19A directs the Tribunal to determine if whether the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, the Tribunal provided the following guidance at paras. 8 and 9:

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.

9It is also important to keep in mind, as the Tribunal pointed out in Abdul v. York University, 2011 HRTO 1851, at para. 17:

The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code.

In other words, the Code is concerned with remedying discrimination in certain social areas on the basis of proscribed grounds. It does not deal with general allegations of unfairness or other social ills.

10In circumstances where there has been a breakdown of a relationship between the applicant and the respondents, it is not sufficient for the applicant to allege that the breakdown occurred because of discrimination or harassment on a Code-protected ground. The applicant must also be able to show that there is some evidence that supports the allegation. This does not mean that the applicant must be able to prove that the allegations are true at the summary hearing stage. At this early stage, the applicant only has to establish that there is some supporting evidence or a reasonable prospect that such evidence is likely to come to light. Otherwise, an application has no reasonable prospect of success at a hearing and will be dismissed.

11Having reviewed the materials filed by the parties and hearing the parties’ submissions, I find that the Tribunal has before it only a bald allegation of discrimination devoid of any real or cogent particulars in relation to any of the respondents. The Tribunal has dismissed applications in similar circumstances. See, Arthur v. Cara Operations Limited, 2012 HRTO 454. The applicant’s allegations of discrimination are based on unsupported suspicion and speculation, and, as a result, the Application does not have a reasonable prospect of success.

ORDER

12The Application is therefore dismissed.