HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Patrocenia Crisostomo Applicant
-and-
Dominion Lending Centres Premier Mortgages Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: October 9, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1702 Indexed as: Crisostomo v. Dominion Lending Centres Premier Mortgages
APPEARANCES
Patrocenia Crisostomo, Applicant Self-represented
Dominion Lending Centres Premier Mortgages, Respondent Alison Lopes, Representative
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.
2On June 27, 2013, the Tribunal, in response to a request from the respondent, issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing that a summary hearing be held pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. A summary hearing is held to determine whether an Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed.
3The summary hearing was held by teleconference on September 9, 2013. During the summary hearing, I heard from the applicant and Alison Lopes, the respondent’s owner and manager. I had before me the Application, Response and the Reply with additional documents filed by the applicant and respondent.
4The applicant self identifies as being Filipino. She worked for the respondent from July 22, 2009 to October 30, 2012 as an independent mortgage agent. The applicant’s principal allegation is that while working for the respondent she received 40% commission on her sales while it was her understanding that the other agents working for the respondent received 80% commission. She further alleges she did not receive keys to the office as did the other agents, which contributes to her belief that she was unfairly treated. She also expressed concerns about how she was treated by Julie Medeiros, Ms. Lopes’ daughter who was assigned to act as the applicant’s mentor. She alleges that she believes she was subject to discriminatory treatment because she was the only agent who was not of European background.
5The respondent’s submissions included evidence that the respondent believed supported its case. The submissions, in effect, contended that the applicant would not be able to establish that she was the only person not making 80% commission or that she was the only agent without a key or that she was the only non-white agent in the office and consequently the applicant’s claim that she was differentially treated would fail. The applicant did not respond to these counterclaims.
6I have not relied on the respondent’s submissions for the purposes of rendering my decision given the practice in summary hearings is to generally accept the applicant’s allegations to be true and to then determine whether they have a reasonable prospect of success.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
7Rule 19A reads:
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.
8In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 7-10, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:
A summary hearing is generally ordered at an early stage in the process. In some cases, the respondent may not have been required to provide a response. In others, the respondent may have responded but disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and the preparation of witness statements, which generally occur following the Notice of Hearing, will not yet have happened.
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.
9In this case the issue is whether the applicant has evidence or can point to evidence that has a reasonable prospect of proving that the respondent’s actions were, in some measure, based on the applicant’s race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin – her being Filipino. If she can point to this evidence, the matter proceeds to a hearing on the merits.
10The Tribunal also does not have the power to deal with general allegations of