West v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2014 HRTO 868

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paula West

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Provincial Police

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: June 12, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 868

Indexed as: West v. Ontario Provincial Police

APPEARANCES

Paula West, Applicant

Olanyi Parsons, Counsel

Ontario Provincial Police, Respondent

Marnie Corbold, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex. The applicant advised at the summary hearing that she was not pursuing the ground of gender identity.

2The applicant resigned from her employment as a constable in September 2012. Allegedly the respondent imposed requirements and conditions on the applicant that disadvantaged her as compared to men and that this led to her resignation.

3A summary hearing was held on June 10, 2014 to determine whether the Application has any reasonable prospect of success, as well as to determine whether some or all of the allegations should be struck out for delay. For the reasons set out below, the Application is dismissed as it has no reasonable prospect of success.

SUBMISSIONS

4The applicant argues that there is no delay because the Application was submitted within a year following the end of her employment with the respondent.

5In relation to the issue of whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success, the applicant asserted that her sex was a factor in how the respondent treated her. She did not point to any evidence to support this assertion.

6The respondent argued that the last incident of discrimination as alleged by the applicant occurred prior to the applicant’s resignation from her employment and that the Application was submitted more than a year after this incident and that the applicant has not provided any good faith explanation for the delay.

7Regarding the issue of whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success, the respondent argues that there is no evidence to suggest the applicant’s sex had any bearing on the actions of the respondent. The respondent indicates that in the absence of any indication that the allegations are supported by evidence, they are merely assertions of discrimination.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

8In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, 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.

In considering what evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, the Tribunal must be attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, information about the reasons for the actions taken by a respondent are within the sole knowledge of the respondent. Evidence about the reasons for actions taken by a respondent may sometimes come through the disclosure process and through cross-examination of the people involved. The Tribunal must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that such evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination. However, when there is no reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities, the application must be dismissed following the summary hearing.

9As 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 the grounds alleged in the Code or the intention by a respondent to commit a reprisal for asserting one’s Code rights.

10The applicant commences her narrative by writing that “she believes that she was subjected to unequal treatment in employment by the respondent…because of her sex” and then she provides details regarding the conduct of the respondent. At no point does she provide particulars to support her belief. She does not identify any specific incidents, statements or documents that might provide an evidentiary foundation sufficient to move this Application beyond mere speculation and unsupported accusations of discrimination. For these reasons the Application is dismissed.

11Having made this determination, it is not necessary for me to consider the issue of delay.

ORDER

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