Chrétien v. Loblaws Inc., 2013 HRTO 951

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richard Chrétien

Applicant

-and-

Loblaws Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: May 29, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 951

Indexed as: Chrétien v. Loblaws Inc.

APPEARANCES

Richard Chrétien, Applicant

Self-represented

Loblaws Inc., Respondent

John O’Reilly, Counsel

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 because of ancestry, citizenship, disability, creed, sexual solicitation, gender identity, family status, age, and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground. The applicant also alleges reprisal.

2A summary hearing was held on May 22, 2013 to determine whether this Application has a reasonable prospect of success. For the reasons below I conclude that it does not and that it should be dismissed.

background

3The applicant worked for the respondent as a driver. On September 29, 2011 at around 3:30 a.m. an incident took place in the parking lot of the respondent company. It involved the applicant and a co-worker. The applicant alleges that the co-worker tried to enter a truck that was assigned to the applicant for the shift that was about to begin. When the applicant asked the co-worker not to get into the truck, a conflict ensued. The applicant alleges that the co-worker started a verbal tirade against him that lasted 3-5 minutes. He alleges that he was subjected to insults and threats. He states that other drivers who witnessed the conflict did not intervene, as they were too frightened. The applicant alleges that he reported the incident to a supervisor, who did nothing to sanction the co-worker.

4The narrative portion of the Application draws no links between these events and the various alleged grounds of discrimination that the applicant identified. In the course of the summary hearing I asked the applicant repeatedly to explain the links that he saw between the incident and the grounds of alleged discrimination by the respondent. He stated that his concern was that the respondent should not be allowed to tolerate this type of conduct in the workplace and that it must be held accountable for the misconduct of his co-worker. I asked him to explain the link between this concern and the specific grounds of discrimination that he had identified. The applicant stated that by identifying numerous specific grounds he was indicating his concern with the co-worker’s conduct and the respondent’s indifference to the impact of that conduct on him. He treated the grounds as a form of catch-all to capture his concerns and described checking them off as checking off “all of the above”. When I asked him to explain this further he stated that he identified citizenship as a ground because he believes that no Canadian citizen should have to endure the kind of conduct he was subjected to in the workplace. He identified creed because according to his religion no person should treat another person in the way his co-worker treated him.

analysis

5In 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. Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure reads:

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.

6In 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.

7As the Tribunal noted in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, at para. 17:

The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. 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 or the intention by a respondent to commit a reprisal for asserting one’s Code rights.

8If I accept the facts as alleged in the Application, I am unable to conclude that there is a link between those facts and discrimination on the grounds identified by the applicant. The applicant was unable to identify specific incidents, statements or documents that would show that any of the grounds of discrimination identified by him were a factor in how he was treated by the respondent. Rather, he focused on the general unfairness of the respondent’s alleged conduct in not sanctioning his co-worker for his verbal outburst.

9The applicant’s belief that no Canadian citizen should have to tolerate what happened to him in the workplace is not an instance of discrimination on the basis of citizenship. This is because the applicant is not alleging that he suffered a disadvantage because he is a Canadian citizen. Instead it is an expression of the applicant’s belief as to what norms of conduct should apply in Canada. Similarly, his religious belief that persons should not treat each in the way he was treated by his co-worker is another example of the applicant’s moral values, not an instance of religious discrimination.

10In Forde, above, at para. 23, the Tribunal noted that: “Reprisal under s. 8 of the Code must be a reprisal for the assertion of human rights and there must be an intention to reprise for that reason”. See also Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. 31. The applicant did not identify an instance where he alleges that any measures were taken against him for having asserted his human rights.

11As the applicant has failed to establish a link between the alleged incident and the grounds of discrimination under the Code and has not pointed to any evidence of reprisal, I conclude that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

order

12The Application is dismissed as it has no reasonable prospect of success.