Audrey Simpson v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions (Canada) Ltd., 2015 HRTO 607

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Audrey Simpson

Applicant

-and-

Konica Minolta Business Solutions (Canada) Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman Date: May 11, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 607 Indexed as: Simpson v. Konica Minolta

APPEARANCES

Audrey Simpson, Applicant

Self-represented

Konica Minolta Business Solutions (Canada) Ltd., Respondent

Denis Manzo, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race and colour contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated December 12, 2014, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.

3The summary hearing was heard by telephone conference call on March 17, 2015.

4Details 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.

5The CAD noted at paragraph four that an applicant must be able to prove discrimination on the basis of a Code ground on a balance of probabilities. To show discrimination, an applicant must prove a link between a respondent’s alleged actions and a Code ground. Paragraph five of the CAD directed the applicant to explain why the Application should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, and point to the evidence on which the applicant will prove a link between the respondent’s actions and the grounds cited.

BACKGROUND

6The applicant self-identifies as an African-Canadian woman.

7The applicant worked as an administrative assistant in an office operated by the respondent from November 28, 2013 until her employment was terminated on June 6, 2014. She was employed by a third-party employment agency that had a service agreement with the respondent.

8During the summary hearing the applicant indicated that she was not given any indication while working at the respondent’s office that there were any perceived problems with her job performance. Approximately three weeks before the respondent told the employment agency that it no longer wanted the applicant’s services, the applicant’s manager gave her a thank-you note and an IPAD as a gift of appreciation. The applicant was the only African-Canadian woman in her department for most of the time that she worked at the respondent’s office, and believes that her termination was related to her race and colour.

9The respondent acknowledged informing the employment agency that it no longer wanted the applicant’s services, but asserts that it did so because of problems with her attitude and the quality of work. More specifically, the respondent asserted that the applicant expressed reluctance to accept assigned tasks and co-workers found her difficult to work with. With respect to work quality, the respondent asserted that she made mistakes entering client addresses which affected the respondent’s ability to issue correct client invoices in a timely manner. The respondent submitted that the workforce at the office in question is very diverse.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

10The test in a summary hearing is whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success. A decision by the Tribunal to allow an application to proceed after a summary hearing does not mean that the application will succeed at a hearing on its merits. It only means that the Tribunal is satisfied that the application contains allegations that, if proven at hearing, could result in a finding the respondent has breached the Code, and that the allegations are sufficiently plausible that it cannot be said that there is no reasonable prospect that they could be proven by the applicant.

11If proven, the applicant’s allegation that her race and colour were a factor in her termination could result in a finding that the respondent breached the applicant’s Code-protected rights. The allegation is sufficiently plausible that it cannot be said that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application could succeed, in whole or in part.

12I therefore find that the Application should not be dismissed on the grounds that there is no reasonable prospect of success.

DECISION

13The Tribunal will continue to process the Application. The respondent is directed to file a Response to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.