Gibson v. Brampton (City), 2014 HRTO 740

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ronnie Gibson

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Brampton

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: May 22, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 740

Indexed as: Gibson v. Brampton (City)

APPEARANCES

Ronnie Gibson, Applicant

James Kay, Counsel

The Corporation of the City of Brampton, Respondent

Asha Rampersad, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). In particular, the applicant alleges that he was not offered a transit operator position because he is a white male. The applicant alleges that the respondent preferentially hires people who are Sikh.

2After a review of the Application and the Response, the Tribunal directed a summary hearing, which was held by telephone conference call on January 24, 2014.

3At the conclusion of the hearing, I directed the parties to provide additional information.

4The applicant alleged that his neighbour, who is a Sikh, was offered a transit driver position, and that the neighbour told the applicant that he was surprised he was offered a position because he had not done well during the interview. The applicant was directed to provide a statement from his neighbour.

5The respondent was directed to provide copies of the interview results for the applicant and the neighbour. The parties were directed to provide submissions on whether the Application should proceed or whether it should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

6The applicant did not provide a statement from the neighbour but instead provided a summary of the evidence that he expects the neighbour would provide at a hearing.

7The respondent did provide the interview information although there is a continuing issue about whether it has disclosed all the information about the interviews. The applicant has also submitted that the respondent should disclose additional documents about the demographics of its workforce. The respondent asserts that this is a fishing expedition.

8The issue before me is whether the Application should proceed or whether it should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal's Practice Direction on Summary Hearings states:

A summary hearing usually considers:

· whether, assuming all of the allegations are true, the Application has no 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; and/or

· whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated by the respondent(s). The applicant has to show that he or she can make a link between the event that led to the Application and the alleged ground(s) of discrimination.

9Rule 19A.6 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that where the Tribunal decides not to dismiss an Application following a summary hearing, it need not give reasons.

10At the summary hearing stage, the Tribunal does not hear evidence and a finding that an Application should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success means only that the Application will continue to be processed. It is not a finding that there is a reasonable prospect of success.

11In this case, I am satisfied that the Application cannot be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application. Both parties have agreed to try mediation, so the Tribunal will proceed to schedule a mediation session.