Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Jang Singh Applicant
-and-
University of Windsor Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: September 25, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1612 Indexed as: Singh v. University of Windsor
Appearances
Jang Singh, Applicant Self-represented
University of Windsor, Respondent Raj Anand, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal under the Code in respect of employment.
2The Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a teleconference hearing be convened to hear the parties’ submissions on the issue of 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 respondent was not called on to file a Response.
3For the reasons that follow, this Application is dismissed.
Decision
4In a Summary Hearing, the issue 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 a part thereof will succeed. It is outlined in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure:
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.
5In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8 and 9, 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.
6The Case Assessment Direction in this Application, issued on November 3, 2012, indicated that the it appeared to the Tribunal that this Application raised issues of absolute privilege and the conduct of respondents’ counsel during a Tribunal hearing and went on to say the following:
The Tribunal has held that it is well-established that statements made during the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and in legal pleadings are made on an occasion of absolute privilege and may not be used as the basis for civil proceedings including Applications under the Code. See G.A. v. York District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1787, at para [18](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2012/1787