Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Yongbin Liu Applicant
-and-
Everlink Payment Services Inc. Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: May 6, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 641 Indexed as: Liu v. Everlink Payment Services Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Yongbin Liu, Applicant Self-represented
Everlink Payment Services Inc., Respondent Todd Andres, Counsel
1Both the applicant and the respondent seek reconsideration of the Decision, 2014 HRTO 202, granting the Application.
2For the reasons set out below, I find that the applicant and the respondent have not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) that would cause a reconsideration of the Decision. In accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration, neither party was required at this initial stage to provide submissions on the other party’s request for reconsideration.
The Decision being challenged
3In the Decision, I found that the applicant successfully established that the respondent had discriminated against him due to his place of origin when it terminated his employment. However, I found that the applicant had not established that he was harassed by his supervisor due to any ground protected under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). I also found that he had not established that the respondent discriminated against him by denying him a long distance package for the use of his cell phone and computer while on vacation.
4As noted in the Decision, the applicant bore the legal onus of establishing discrimination and/or harassment on a balance of probabilities. In the Decision, I found that, even if I were to accept the applicant’s version of the incidents of alleged harassment, he had not established that these incidents were linked to any of the grounds protected under the Code. For this reason, I dismissed his claims of harassment under the Code. I was also not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that the applicant had established discrimination in relation to the long distance package.
5With respect to the termination, I was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the applicant’s perceived verbal communication difficulties in English were a factor in the respondent’s decision to re-organize his position and to terminate his employment. I reached this conclusion based on the totality of the evidence. As noted in the Decision, the two main factors leading to my conclusion were an e-mail exchange between the applicant’s supervisor and one of the respondent’s human relations representatives a few months before the applicant’s termination, as well as the respondent’s failure to call two witnesses who would have material and direct knowledge of key facts surrounding the applicant’s termination.
6I was also satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence supported a nexus between the applicant’s perceived difficulties communicating verbally in English and his place of origin. Finally, I found that the respondent had not made out any defence under the Code. Therefore, I found that the applicant had successfully established that his place of origin was a factor in the termination of his employment.
7As a remedy, I awarded the applicant $15,000 as monetary compensation for injury to his dignity, feelings and self-respect; lost wages for the period May 31, 2012 to May 1, 2013, less any monies already paid and less deductions required by law; as well as pre- and post-judgment interest. I found that the applicant was not entitled to be reimbursed for other amounts sought in the Application as he had provided no evidence in relation to these claims at the hearing.
Applicable Principles
8In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, [2008 HRTO 34](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2008/2008