HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Andrea Anderson
Applicant
-and-
Stieber Berlach LLP
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson
Indexed as: Anderson v. Stieber Berlach LLP
APPEARANCES
Andrea Anderson, Applicant
Self-represented
Stieber Berlach LLP, Respondent
William R. Gale, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application was filed on December 31, 2010, under s. 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of colour, disability and age.
2By Interim Decision dated July 27, 2012, 2012 HRTO 1471, the applicant’s June 29, 2011 Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) to amend the Application to include the ground of family status, and further information and allegations relating to the ground of disability, was granted. The applicant’s September 19, 2011 and April 13, 2012 Requests to amend the Application were denied.
3This Decision follows a summary hearing.
The applicant’s allegations
4The Application contains a lengthy narrative. It appears that the applicant was employed as a Legal Assistant with the respondent law firm from January 4 to August 11, 2010, when her employment was terminated. The applicant’s narrative includes the following allegations and information:
a. While employed with the respondent law firm, the applicant worked for Valerie Wise. Her interview with Ms. Wise was arranged by “Kent Legal”. She explains that Ms. Wise and her had both previously worked at the same law firm, but at different times. The applicant also explains that she was concerned that her new job was going to be in the same location as the law firm they previously worked at, and that they would be bumping into staff from the previous firm. She did not want Ms. Wise to hear any rumours from someone else. During her interview, she told Ms. Wise that she had experienced sexual harassment at the previous firm. Ms. Wise told her that she could believe it. The applicant alleges that when she started working at the respondent firm, things were great and she felt good “vibes” from Ms. Wise for a long time. Ms. Wise seemed extremely kind and supportive.
b. The Application contains numerous allegations that rumours and knowledge concerning events related to the applicant at the previous firm she worked at essentially followed her to the respondent firm. For example, the applicant alleges that a law clerk told her that she also previously worked at the same law firm that the applicant and Ms. Wise previously worked at and said that “so and so is a ‘really nice guy’” and the applicant agreed. It was a very short conversation, but it shook her hard, and she did not know what to make of it. She refers to the comments as a “loaded remark.” She immediately felt that the law clerk already knew something. The applicant also alleges that, after a couple of months, a law clerk asked her about a person at the law firm the applicant previously worked at. The applicant said that she was really nice. The law clerk responded, “Unlike everyone else.” The applicant really felt at this stage that the respondent firm “knew just about everything there was to know.” The applicant also states that she felt sure that people at the respondent firm knew a lot about her case with the previous firm she worked at, and that rumours had been spreading.
c. The Application contains a number of allegations related to female employees commenting on each other’s “dress codes.” For example, the applicant refers to telling a co-worker how nice she looked. She also states that she could start to sense something odd with this co-worker’s behaviour towards her, because her co-worker refused to look at her or speak to her and kept turning around trying to talk to another co-worker. The applicant also alleges that she told a law clerk, after the law clerk had commented on the applicant’s dress yet again, that she had problems in the past and that a lawyer used to “hit on her” because of the way she dressed and it had upset some people. She explained that she has always dressed the way she did and buys her clothes in the U.K. and that formal dressing in offices is a way of life there. She states that it just seems to have become such a big deal for her here and it causes her a lot of emotional turmoil.
d. Just before her “three month interview” with the Kent Legal’s Director of Finance and Administration, Petra Paul, the applicant noticed that no matter how she had tried with another lawyer’s assistant, “the problems” did not subside. She also states that she noticed a similar strange attitude from two other assistants towards her. When Ms. Paul asked her if she had any concerns during her three month interview, she said that she got along well with all of the immediate people that she sat near. She did not want to say anything at that point and complain, and thought that she should ignore any problems and they should resolve on their own.
e. The applicant states that she started to see a change in a law clerk’s behaviour towards her and their relationship got a little strained once in an email and over Ms. Wise’s instructions. She states that the law clerk stopped going for coffee and lunch with her and started going for lunch and coffee with a new law clerk. She states that there was something peculiar going on with the law clerk and four of her other co-workers.
f. Sometime in May 2010, Ms. Paul talked to her about new harassment legislation, going into great lengths about it and explaining about office harassment and bullying. By the time she finished, the applicant was in tears as it sounded all too familiar to her and she was overcome by emotion. Ms. Paul asked her what was wrong and if something like this happened to her. The applicant said that it did but that she did not want to talk about it. Ms. Paul asked her how it ended and the applicant said that she left the firm. The applicant then told Ms. Wise that Ms. Paul had started to speak to her about office harassment. Ms. Wise said, “I didn’t say anything to her.”
g. Shortly after Ms. Paul spoke to her about the new harassment legislation, the applicant made an appointment to see her. She told her that in spite of trying really hard to be nice to another lawyer’s assistant and her friends that she was sensing a really bad attitude from them that was making things very uncomfortable for her.
h. At the applicant’s six month review, Ms. Paul was a little negative with her. The applicant was accused of being “a defensive”. She felt that they wanted to have an excuse if they ever fired her and that came two months “down the road” from the review.
i. The applicant refers to an incident sometime in June 2010 with the new law clerk, who had been “pulling faces” at the applicant whenever she passed her and said “hello”. One morning the applicant said “hello” to the new law clerk in the kitchen and she did not reciprocate. The applicant later said “hello” again and the new law clerk pulled a face at her. It made the applicant angry. She told another co-worker that she was going to speak to Ms. Paul and the co-worker told her to speak to the person directly. The applicant then went to the new law clerk and asked her what was wrong, and the new law clerk said that she did not hear the applicant in the kitchen. The applicant then told the new law clerk that she would be speaking to Ms. Paul. The new law clerk then followed her through the corridor and started screaming and shouting at the top of her voice in a threatening manner, telling the applicant to stop being a “child” and that she was going to see Ms. Paul. The applicant calmly told the new law clerk that she would not see Ms. Paul.
j. The new law clerk did manage to see Ms. Paul before the applicant. When the applicant saw Ms. Paul, Ms. Paul told her that, as the law clerk had nothing to do with her work-wise, that there was no reason why she should say hello to her. Ms. Paul also said, “If you say hello to them and they don’t reply who cares, it’s usually the younger ones.” Ms. Paul said “so what” and that the applicant should ignore them and carry on. Ms. Paul also said, “no matter who’s hitting on who.” The applicant states that, obviously, the remark about her telling another co-worker about lawyers hitting on her had been passed on to Ms. Paul and had also quite clearly gone around the office. The applicant’s impression from all of this is that the respondent firm had started an investigation on her and word had already gone around the office about it.
k. After these events the applicant started noticing problems arising with Ms. Wise, and Ms. Wise started to pick on her for no reason. On June 18, 2010, the applicant went for coffee one morning and Ms. Wise shouted at her upon her return and wanted to know what she had done all morning.
l. On July 9, 2010, before leaving for a week’s vacation, the applicant had asked to leave around 2:00 p.m. because she was going to the airport to pick up her daughter. Sometime between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m. she received a request from another assistant asking her to do a particular task on one of Ms. Wise’s files. She told the other assistant that she was off the next week and trying to rush out, and asked her politely to please help out by doing it. The other assistant sad “no” for various reasons. The applicant then received another email from another individual that was blatantly rude. The applicant states that she got suspicious about what looked to be a “set up” scenario. She asked this other individual what it had to do with her and then copied the email to Ms. Wise. The applicant states that Ms. Wise took sides with this other individual for some strange reason because the applicant told her that she did not like the “politics” of this scenario. She then sent Ms. Wise a text message later that day to tell her that she was not going to put up with this sort of behaviour and said that she would like to speak with her. Ms. Wise replied on July 11 to say that she would rather wait and speak in person when the applicant was back in the office. The applicant states that it is her impression that it was hoped that she would have done or said something in this stressful situation to give the firm an excuse to fire her, because when she spoke to Ms. Paul, she mentioned that the applicant had sent the other legal assistant that email.
m. The applicant states that, sometime before she was fired, she told Ms. Wise that the reason that she is “like this” is because of what happened to her at the previous firm. Ms. Wise replied that she was sorry about what happened to the applicant, but that no one in the respondent firm would do that to her.
n. The applicant states that when she returned from vacation on July 19, she noticed entries in Ms. Wise’s calendar for appointments with two individuals on July 20. Shortly before the first appointment, Ms. Wise received a telephone call from Ms. Paul and then left her office in the direction of reception. The applicant states that Ms. Wise was interviewing the first individual for the applicant’s job. She states that it was a horrific experience to know that someone else was being interviewed for her job while she was in the office. The applicant states that she was crying at her desk while Ms. Wise was interviewing and she told another lawyer that she suspected that she was going to be fired.
o. On August 9, 2010, the applicant did not go to the office. She states that she knew that she would be fired shortly. She made an appointment with her doctor for August 11, 2010. Her doctor told her to go into work on August 12, and gave her a “sick note” for August 9 to 11, 2010.
p. When the applicant got home on August 11, 2010, she telephoned Ms. Paul, told her that she had a sick note from her doctor and that she would be coming in the next day, but that she expected that she would be fired. She told Ms. Paul that if she was going to fire her she should do it on the phone in order to avoid humiliating her in the office. Ms. Paul agreed with her and said that she was going to fire her. Ms. Paul told her that it was Ms. Wise’s decision. She faxed a copy of her sick note to Ms. Paul the next day.
q. The applicant received a letter from Ms. Paul dated August 11, 2010, stating that the termination was not a reflection of her performance, but rather that she was “not a good fit with the firm.”
r. The applicant states that she is of the opinion that the respondent firm liaised with the previous firm she worked at over the firing. The applicant states that because her termination letter offered to provide her with a letter of reference, and because she had requested a letter of reference from her previous firm, her previous firm must have told the respondent firm that she would want this.
5In her Request to amend the Application to include the ground of family status, and further information and allegations relating to the ground of disability, which was granted, the applicant explains that the basic facts about discrimination on the basis of family status were included in her original Application. The applicant refers to the allegations in her Application related to her going to the airport on Friday, July 9, 2010 to pick up her daughter.
6With respect to the ground of disability, the applicant states that she has been somewhat aware for many years that she more than likely has dyslexia, but has never been tested for it, and it has therefore remained undiagnosed. She also states that it is more than likely that she has “ADHD”. The applicant alleges that it is her belief that the previous firm she worked at was somewhat aware of her condition and passed this information on to the respondent firm. She also alleges that the respondent firm “ran investigations” on her at a time of stress so that she would incriminate herself by writing a “crazy email”, which she was accused of doing at the previous firm she worked at, in order that the respondent firm would have a legitimate reason to fire her. The applicant also alleges that Ms. Wise told her that she wanted her to push herself as hard as she could, which makes her strongly believe that Ms. Wise was aware that she had ADHD, even though the applicant, herself, was not aware of her condition at the time.
The respondent’s position
7In its Response to the Application, the respondent submits that the applicant never states in the narrative in her Application, either expressly or implicitly, that anyone from the respondent firm discriminated against her based on the Code grounds cited. The respondent submits that the applicant is essentially complaining of certain interpersonal relationship issues, or friction, that she experienced with a few of her colleagues, and that she has not alleged that any of these perceived interpersonal difficulties had anything to do with the Code grounds relied upon. They also submit that the applicant continually speculates that there are conspiratorial events taking place and concludes, based upon her intuition, that other employees have conspired to be unfriendly towards her.
8The respondent also submits that all of the personality conflicts which did arise during the applicant’s brief tenure with the respondent were contributed to by the applicant’s behaviour and attitude. The respondent submits that when the applicant contacted Ms. Paul on August 11, 2012, the respondent had already determined that it would be terminating the applicant’s employment, without cause, on the basis that she was creating a great deal of dissention among certain other legal assistants and law clerks over personality conflicts which appeared to be arising between the applicant and these other legal assistants and law clerks. The respondent submits that this was resulting in a staff morale problem and a reduction in productivity. More particularly, the respondent submits that the applicant was very defensive and spent unproductive time dealing with minor personality clashes she had with other employees. As a result the respondent firm decided the applicant’s fit and personality were not conducive to the efficient operation of the firm and that it would be necessary to terminate her employment without cause.
SUMMARY HEARING
9Rule 19A.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, states 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.
10In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, the Tribunal made the following comments about summary hearings, at paras. 8-10:
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.
11In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated July 27, 2012, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing by teleconference 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 the Application, or part of the Application, will succeed. The CAD directed the applicant to make argument at the summary hearing about why the Application should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, and point to evidence on which the applicant would prove a link between the respondent’s actions and the grounds cited.
12The Tribunal also indicated in the CAD that the parties should also be prepared to address the applicant’s remaining Requests for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry, and other Requests, which had not yet been addressed by the Tribunal.
Requests
13The applicant filed two Requests for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry dated May 17 and May 31, 2012. These Requests actually appear to be requests for production, and include requests for production of documents from third parties to whom the Requests do not appear to have been delivered. On July 3, 2012, the applicant filed a lengthy Request. The applicant indicates that the Request is to amend her Application, and for particulars and production. Again, the Request appears to be a Request for production.
14At the summary hearing, the applicant did not make any further submissions regarding these Requests.
15The Requests for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry, which are essentially requests for production, and the Request for production, are denied. A Tribunal Ordered Inquiry is not a substitute for the normal disclosure and production requirement of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. See White v. University of Ottawa, 2009 HRTO 1057. In addition, while a Notice of Hearing was issued in this matter, the hearing date was converted to a summary hearing. In the circumstances, the requests for production are effectively premature. The applicant has not provided any reason why the requested documents are needed at this stage of the proceeding.
16On July 20, 2012, the applicant filed another lengthy Request. Although the applicant indicates that the Request is to add a party and amend her Application, it appears to be a Request to add two third parties as respondents to her Application. It does not appear, however, that the applicant delivered the Request to the proposed respondents, and this was pointed out in the Tribunal’s Interim Decision dated July 27, 2012. There was no indication prior to or at the summary hearing that this Request had been delivered to the proposed respondents. In the circumstances, including given my determination below that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success, this Request is dismissed.
Reasonable prospect of success
17While the applicant cites discrimination on the basis of colour in her Application, there do not appear to be any actual allegations in the main narrative of the Application related to this Code ground. The applicant does explain elsewhere in Form 1-A of the Application, in response to specific questions about discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, or ethnic origin, that she is of mixed race, was born in India, and self-identifies as Anglo-Indian. The applicant also appears to allege that racialized women, specifically legal assistants as opposed to lawyers, are not meant to “dress up” for the office as she does, and she believes that she has been subjected to discrimination in relation to this. She also states that she feels that, just as one can be discriminated against by people of one’s own sex, similarly, one can be discriminated against by people of a similar colour, and that this happened at the respondent firm.
18While the applicant appears to allege that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of colour in relation to the way she dressed, she does not explain how she was subjected to discrimination. In addition, at the summary hearing, the applicant made no submissions with respect to the Code ground of colour, nor did she point to any evidence reasonably available to her that would in any way support a finding of discrimination on the basis of colour.
19I also note that, as set out above, the Application contains a number of allegations related to female employees commenting on “dress codes.” The applicant also states in her Application, however, that it is nice when women compliment each other on their “dress code”, and she thoroughly agrees. She also explains that there was never a problem with the lawyer she worked for at the respondent firm on this, but there had been a huge problem about her regarding this matter at the previous firm she worked at. In the circumstances, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success with respect to the allegation of discrimination in employment on the basis of colour, and this allegation is dismissed.
20In Form 1-A of her Application, the applicant states that she feels that she was subjected to discrimination due to her age by some staff members of the respondent firm. The applicant refers to the allegation also set out in the narrative of her Application that when she complained to Ms. Paul about the new law clerk not saying “hello” to her, Ms. Paul told her that if staff do not say “hello”, just ignore them, and that it is “usually the younger ones” that do not say “hello”. The applicant also alleges that the law clerk she worked with asked her age.
21Despite alleging discrimination on the basis of age in her Application, the applicant explicitly submitted at the summary hearing that she was not subjected to discrimination on the basis of age while working at the respondent firm. As such, the applicant did not explain how she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of age, assuming the above allegations related to age to be true, and she appears to have effectively withdrawn any allegations of discrimination on the basis of age. In the circumstances, the allegations of discrimination on the basis of age are dismissed.
22The applicant alleges that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of family status in relation to going to the airport on Friday, July 9, 2010 to pick up her daughter who she had not seen for a year. She alleges in her Application that before leaving for a week’s vacation, she had asked to leave around 2:00 p.m. Sometime between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m. she received a request from another assistant asking her to do a particular task on one of Ms. Wise’s files. She told the other assistant that she was off the next week and trying to rush out, and asked her politely to please help out by doing it, but the other assistant declined.
23At the summary hearing, the applicant maintained that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of family status, but she did not refer to any evidence reasonably available to her that could show a link between the incident on July 9, 2010, and the ground of family status. In particular, the applicant did not indicate if she explained to the respondent why she wanted to leave early, or if the other assistant who asked her to do a task between 1:30 and 2:00 knew why she was trying to rush out. The applicant did not point to any evidence that the respondent, or the other assistant, knew that the applicant wanted to leave early in order to pick up her daughter. The applicant also did not explain how she could establish that she had a Code-related need to pick up her daughter at the airport. I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success with respect to the allegation of discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, and this allegation is dismissed.
24The remaining allegations in the Application appear to be related to the ground of disability. In her narrative, the applicant does not actually refer to having a disability. She does, however, mention having two appointments with her psychiatrist during the time she was employed with the respondent, and seeing her doctor who put her on various medications.
25In response to specific questions about discrimination on the basis of disability, or perceived disability, in Form 1-A of the Application, the applicant states that she realized that she is still suffering from the effects of post-traumatic stress. She alleges that Ms. Wise most likely also realized this, and that she told Ms. Wise at her interview that she had experienced what she believes to have been sexual harassment at the previous firm she worked at. The applicant also alleges that, after she discovered that the respondent was trying to find a reason to fire her, she told Ms. Wise that the only reason she behaves the way she does, “i.e. cry”, is because of what happened to her previously. She alleges that the respondent terminated her employment, knowing full well that she has a disability. She also refers to having depression, and to taking antidepressants. She states, however, that she did not feel the need to disclose this to anyone at the respondent firm, and that she did not do so.
26As set out above, in her Request to include further information and allegations relating to the ground of disability, which was granted, the applicant states that she has been somewhat aware for many years that she more than likely has dyslexia, but has never been tested for it. She also states that it is more than likely that she has “ADHD”, that it is her belief that the previous firm she worked at was somewhat aware of her condition and passed this information on to the respondent firm, and that she strongly believed that Ms. Wise was aware that she had ADHD, even though the applicant, herself, was not aware of her condition at the time. She also alleges that a co-worker told her that she was sick and needed to go back to the U.K.
27At the summary hearing, the applicant stated that she was depressed, but that she did not “get into it” with the respondent firm. She also stated that she did not tell the respondent that she had a disability of some sort. She did essentially assert that it was discriminatory to terminate her employment when she gave the respondent a “sick note”. She acknowledged, however, that the respondent had already “made up their minds” to terminate her employment prior to her providing the note.
28In my view, the applicant has not pointed to any evidence reasonably available to her that could establish a link between the respondent’s actions and the ground of disability. First of all, the applicant has been clear throughout this matter that she did not inform the respondent that she had any disability.
29To the extent that the applicant is alleging that she was subjected to discrimination based on perceived disability, she did refer to crying in front of Ms. Paul on one occasion after a lengthy discussion about harassment when she confirmed that she had been subjected to harassment in the past. The applicant also refers to crying in front of Ms. Wise after she became aware that Ms. Wise’s behaviour towards her had changed remarkably and they were trying to put her under pressure to get her to leave or terminate her employment. The applicant also states that a co-worker told her that she was sick and that she needed to go back to the U.K., but no further information about this incident was provided, nor did the applicant claim that the respondent was informed about his incident. I find, however, that the applicant has not pointed to potential evidence sufficient to establish that the respondent either knew or perceived that the applicant had a disability within the meaning of the Code. Even if the respondent did perceive the applicant to have a disability within the meaning of the Code, the applicant has not pointed to any potential evidence that could establish that the termination of her employment was related to any perceived disability.
30As the Tribunal noted in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17, 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 my view, based on the applicant’s materials and submissions, the allegation that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability appears to be highly speculative.
31The applicant also appears to allege that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability because her employment was terminated in relation to taking three sick days immediately prior to the termination of her employment. I note that the applicant states in her Application that she became aware that her employment would be terminated when Ms. Paul returned from vacation on August 9, 2010. She did not go into the office on August 9, and she made an appointment to see her doctor on August 11, 2010. She states that she had also “sprained” her back as a result of working in her yard, and had taken a muscle relaxant. The applicant states that her doctor gave her a sick note for August, 9, 10, and 11, 2010, and told her to go back to work the next day.
32The applicant also states in her Application that she telephoned Ms. Paul on August 11, 2010, and told her that she had a sick note for three days, and that she was aware that Ms. Paul was going to terminate her employment. The applicant essentially told Ms. Paul that if she was going to terminate her employment she should do it then, over the phone, in order to avoid humiliating her in the office. Ms. Paul agreed that she was going to terminate the applicant’s employment, and told her that it had been Ms. Wise’s decision.
33The applicant did not state, in either her materials or at the summary hearing, that her absence from work on August 9, 10, and 11, 2010, was in any way related to a disability within the meaning of the Code. Rather, the applicant appears to assert that she did not go into work because she knew that her employment was going to be terminated, and she also took a muscle relaxant because she hurt her back doing yard work.
34In addition, while the applicant was not entirely clear in her materials as to how she knew prior to August 9, 2010 that her employment would be terminated, the respondent agrees that a decision to terminate the applicant’s employment was made prior to the applicant taking three days off immediately prior to the termination of her employment in August 2010. In these circumstances, the applicant has not shown a connection between her August 9 to 11, 2010 absences and the Code ground of disability, nor has the applicant otherwise shown how she could establish a link between the termination of her employment and the Code ground of disability.
Other allegations and conclusion
35In her materials and submissions, the applicant also raised numerous allegations that rumours and knowledge concerning events at a law firm that she previously worked at, including events related to her being sexually harassed, essentially followed her to the respondent firm. These allegations are highly speculative, and the applicant has not pointed to any evidence that could establish that this occurred. Moreover, the applicant has not explained, even if this did occur, how it resulted in any discrimination against her while employed at the respondent firm, based on the Code grounds alleged.
36The Application is dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed.
37In the circumstances, I need not consider the applicant’s August 7, 2012 Request to amend her Application with respect to the remedy she is seeking and the various other Requests that the applicant filed subsequent to the summary hearing.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of July, 2013.
“Signed by”
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair