Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Jennifer Gordon
Applicant
-and-
Woodgreen Community and Wellness for Seniors
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Gordon v. Woodgreen Community and Wellness for Seniors
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jennifer Gordon, Applicant
Self-represented
Woodgreen Community and Wellness for Seniors, Respondent
John J. Bruce, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour and age.
2On June 23, 2014, the Tribunal directed of its own initiative that a Summary Hearing would be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent was advised that it did not need to file a Response until further direction.
3The Summary Hearing was held on September 12, 2014. Both parties participated at the Summary Hearing. Neither party filed any written submissions.
4For the reasons that follow the Application is dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success.
Background
5The information below is based solely on the applicant’s version of events. For the purposes of this decision I have assumed, without finding, that these are true. The applicant applied to work for the respondent.
6On October 20, 2013 the applicant received an email at 5:53 p.m. which inquired whether she was available for an interview at 2:00 p.m. on October 21, 2013. The applicant did not check her email until the next day. At 12:18 p.m. on October 21, 2013 the applicant notified the respondent via email that she could attend the interview. The applicant says that she attended the respondent’s office at 1:45 p.m. and that the receptionist seemed surprised to see her. The applicant used the facilities and was back in the reception area by 1:52 p.m. She then waited between 20 to 25 minutes until the receptionist told her she had to fill out a questionnaire. She was brought to a room and she was told that she had 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The applicant quickly finished the questionnaire and waited for someone to come get her.
7Eventually, the receptionist came to get her at approximately 3:30 p.m. She was brought back to the reception area and she was told that she would be interviewed after two other candidates. One candidate was Caucasian and the other was Asian. Though the applicant had to work at 4:00 o’clock, she did not communicate this to the respondent and agreed to wait. The applicant says that the interviews of these two other candidates lasted between 35 to 40 minutes.
8At 5:00 p.m. the interviewer finally came to get her for the interview. The applicant says that she was flustered by that point because she had been waiting a long time. The interviewer asked the applicant whether she wanted to reschedule the interview. The applicant declined. The interviewer advised her that another employee would also be part of the interview process but that she was busy and that she would join them later. The second interviewer eventually arrived about five minutes after the interview had already started and the applicant’s interview lasted approximately 35 minutes.
9During the Summary Hearing the applicant explained that she felt that she had been treated very rudely by the respondent during the interview process. This included having to wait until at the latest 2:18 p.m. before she was given the questionnaire to fill out, and being left in the room until 3:30 p.m. to complete the questionnaire. When I asked the applicant why she did not go back to the reception desk immediately after she had completed the questionnaire she said that she did not know what to do at that point.
10The applicant also takes issue with the fact that she was told that she would be interviewed third. However, at the time she did not object or tell the respondent that she could not wait because she had to work. She also did not raise the issue that she believed that this was unfair to her to be interviewed third.
11The applicant also believes that it was rude that the interviewer offered her to reschedule when she had already been waiting three hours. She also thought that the interviewer was rude because she stopped to speak to a fellow employee as she was bringing her to the interview room.
12When I asked the applicant what evidence she had to support her belief that a prohibited ground motivated any of the respondent’s actions the applicant said that she knew that she had none. She said that she felt that the interviewer hated her because of her skin colour. During the hearing it was clear that the incidents she was describing had been difficult for her. The applicant stated that she had no idea when the other two candidates attended the respondent’s premises, though it did appear that they had already completed the questionnaire when she went back in the reception area at 3:30 p.m. The applicant stated that she was not seeking any damages but was seeking an apology for having waited so long and that the Tribunal issue orders with respect to how job candidates are to be treated during the interview process.
Decision
13Details 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.
14Having considered the applicant’s submissions and Application I find that the applicant has not proposed any evidence to support her belief that any of the alleged unfair conduct can be linked to a prohibited ground under the Code. The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to address all allegations of unfairness. There must be some evidence to link allegedly unfair conduct to a prohibited ground under the Code. Having reviewed the facts as outlined in the Application and especially in light of the fact that the applicant repeatedly submitted that she had no evidence to support her allegations of discriminatory conduct, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
Order
15The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of September, 2014.
"Signed by"
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair