HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Navneet Singh
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Bradley Thompson,
Bob Gardner and Melanie Crete
Respondents
decision
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Singh v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
APPEARANCES
Navneet Singh, Applicant ) On her own behalf
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario ) as represented by the Minister of ) Community Safety and Correctional Services, ) Chris Donszelmann, Counsel Bradley Thompson, Bob Gardner and ) Melanie Crete, Respondents, )
1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) which alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin and sex. The respondents filed a Response denying the allegations in the Application.
2In a Case Assessment Direction dated July 12, 2011, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held and stated at paragraph 3:
Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, 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.
3A half-day summary hearing by teleconference was held on February 23, 2012, in which all parties participated. The respondents filed materials with the Tribunal in advance of the summary hearing. The applicant did not file any additional materials.
BACK GROUND
4The applicant was employed as a probationary Constable with the Ontario Provincial Police (the “OPP”) commencing in May 2009. During the eleventh month of her one year probationary period the OPP recommended the applicant’s termination from employment and the applicant ultimately resigned on April 26, 2010.
5The applicant alleges that during her probationary period she was not provided with sufficient guidance and mentorship. The applicant takes issue with the fact that she was assigned a female coach PC Melanie Crete, in months nine to eleven of her probationary period, stating that she, “lacked training, knowledge and experience” and that this “was clearly gender discrimination”.
6She alleges that PC Crete subjected her to differential treatment and lists a number of incidents that she believes is evidence of this unfair treatment. She states in her Application that “I believe that all of the incidents occurred because of my gender and race for I cannot think of any other reason why I would be subjected to such differential treatment”. The applicant states in the Application that it is her belief that PC Crete is threatened by women who are visible minorities because this might affect her career advancement.
7In the Application the applicant states that she heard PC Crete make negative comments about another female auxiliary officer’s performance. The applicant states in the Application that she did not observe these deficiencies when she met the auxiliary officer. During the conference call the applicant stated that she did not know the name of the auxiliary officer but that she would have it at the hearing.
8The respondents submitted a number of documents in advance of the hearing, including the applicant’s monthly evaluations. The respondents’ position is that there were issues with the applicant’s performance prior to the assignment of PC Crete as her last coach and the applicant knew that significant improvement needed to be demonstrated in her performance.
9Further, the OPP selected PC Crete because it wanted to give the applicant the opportunity of reporting to a different coach to assist her in overcoming her performance deficiencies. The respondents submit that there is no reasonable prospect the application could succeed.
DECISION
10Having considered the submissions of the parties, the documents submitted by the parties and reviewed the pleadings, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success for the reasons that follow.
11The applicant has not proposed any evidence which would establish a link between an alleged ground of discrimination and her treatment by the respondents, including the decision to terminate her probationary employment.
12The respondents relied on the case of Anand v. Mohawk College 2012 HRTO 151, in which the Tribunal found that vague and impressionistic evidence is not sufficient to establish that the Application has a reasonable prospect of success.
13In this case, the applicant has a belief that the actions of the respondents were based on her race and gender but she has not pointed to any evidence which could support that conclusion. Although she describes a number of incidents in which she feels she was treated unfairly by PC Crete, she has not indicated how she could prove that this unfair treatment, even if true, was linked to her race and gender. Further, even if I accept that PC Crete exhibited a lack of training, knowledge or experience, the applicant has not pointed to any evidence that could establish that these deficiencies amounted to differential and adverse treatment of the applicant, based on her grounds alleged.
14With respect to her contention that PC Crete made negative comments about the performance of another auxiliary officer, even if I accept this as true, it could not, in itself, reasonably support a finding that the applicant was treated in a discriminatory manner based on her Code-protected grounds.
15The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of April, 2012.
”signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair