HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Abderrahim Bouzid
Applicant
-and-
Woodchester Nissan Inc.
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Bouzid v. Woodchester Nissan Inc.
APPEARANCES
Abderrahim Bouzid, Applicant
Self-represented
Woodchester Nissan Inc., Respondent
Joseph Celetti, Representative
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 reprisal.
2On April 10, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction which directed, on its own initiative, that a preliminary hearing be held to determine whether some of the allegations in the application were untimely and whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent was directed not to file a Response.
3On September 13, 2013 the preliminary hearing was held via telephone conference during which both parties made submissions.
BACKGROUND
4The applicant was employed by the respondent from April until November 2008. He alleges that during this time he raised issues that his rights under the Code were being infringed.
5In September 2012, the applicant requested a letter from the respondent confirming that he had been employed by the respondent and that there were no insurance claims that had involved the applicant. The applicant provided the respondent with a sample letter. Within days of the request, the respondent prepared the letter and sent it to the applicant.
6However, the insurance company referred to in the letter prepared by the respondent had ceased to exist. The respondent was not aware of this because it had ceased doing business with that particular insurance company for a number of years.
7Thereafter, the applicant accused the respondent of providing him with an inaccurate letter and threatened legal action. In January 2013, the applicant received from the successor insurance company the confirmation that he was seeking.
DELAY
8During the conference call the applicant confirmed that he was only referring to the events in 2008 as evidence that he sought the enforcement of his rights under the Code. Since the applicant is not seeking any remedies for the events in 2008, I do not have to address the issue of delay.
DECISION
9Details 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.
10With respect to the reprisal allegation, in the decision of Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878, the Tribunal describes the legal elements of establishing a claim of reprisal under Section 8 of the Code at paragraph 33:
Thus, in a complaint or application alleging reprisal, the following elements must be established:
a. An action taken against, or threat made to, the complainant;
b. The alleged action or threat is related to the complainant having claimed, or attempted to enforce a right under the Code; and
c. An intention on the part of the respondent to retaliate for the claim or attempt to enforce the right.
11The applicant believes that the respondent reprised against him by failing to provide him with the letter he was seeking. However, the applicant was unable to identify or point to any evidence to support his allegations that any of the actions of the employer were for the purposes of reprising against him contrary to the Code.
12In fact, the proposed evidence points to a contrary finding. It is not disputed that the respondent quickly responded to the applicant’s request for the letter, and the information contained therein was accurate. Though the applicant asserts that the letter provided false information, the respondent cannot be faulted for the fact that the insurance company ceased to exist in the four years that the applicant waited to request the letter.
ORDER
13Since the Application has no reasonable prospect of success, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of November, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair