Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Michael Ralf
Applicant
-and-
Talent Trump International Limited (London International Academy) and Pat Johnson
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Ralf v. Talent Trump International Limited
APPEARANCES
Michael Ralf, Applicant
Heather Marie Senyshen, Representative
Talent Trump International Limited (London International Academy) and Pat Johnson, Respondents
Mana Khami, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant filed this Application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents filed a Response denying the applicant’s allegations. The applicant filed a Reply in which he also makes allegations of discrimination because he is male.
2On January 27, 2015, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing would be held because it appeared that some or all of the allegations in the Application may be untimely and that there may be no reasonable prospect that the Application, may in whole or in part succeed.
3The preliminary hearing was held on April 30, 2015. At the preliminary hearing the applicant could not answer basic questions about his Application including how he could establish a link between his creed and sex and the alleged adverse treatment that he was subjected to. He advised, that he is a very busy paralegal and that he did not have time to review the file in advance of the hearing. The applicant asked that the Tribunal refer to the Application, Reply and documents filed by the parties. He said that everything was in the emails submitted by the applicant.
Decision
4The approach in a summary hearing was set out as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 9-10:
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.
5This case is of the second type which requires an analysis of the evidence to assess whether there is no reasonable prospect of success. The issue at the summary hearing stage is whether there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove that the respondent discriminated and/or harassed him on the basis of either his creed and/or his sex.
6I have reviewed the allegations made by the applicant in his materials. First, I note that the applicant in his emails to the respondent raised the issue that both he and another female employee were being harassed, discriminated against and bullied at work. He also characterizes a number of work-related emails as forms of harassment, bullying and of treating him like a child. Eventually, he writes to the respondent on May 31, 2014 asking the respondent to suspend and then terminate two of his supervisors. This is a long letter, in which he details a number of allegations against these individuals, and theorizes that this conduct is directed at him because of his creed. He also indicates in this letter that there are rumours that the respondent wants to terminate his employment. In response to this letter, the respondent advises the applicant that a meeting will be convened to address the issues as soon as he returns to work. The applicant is then absent from work for an undisclosed “ongoing medical problem.”
7On June 11, 2014, the applicant writes an email to the respondent asking whether it has investigated the allegation that one of his supervisors is stealing from students, and he demands an apology for an outburst that occurred at a previous meeting. The respondent replied confirming that it would meet with him upon his return to work. The applicant has never returned to work.
8There is also an allegation in the Application that non-Chinese Teachers are paid less than Chinese Teachers. However, the applicant provides no information as to who these teachers are and how much they are making. However, he does go on to state that he makes more money than a female student.
9For an application to proceed at the Tribunal, an applicant is obliged to provide some evidentiary foundation for a belief that allegations of adverse treatment is related to a prohibited ground under the Code. In this case, the applicant has failed to point to any evidence in the Application, or any evidence that may reasonably be available to him, to support his assertion that he has been discriminated against either on the basis of his creed or his sex. In fact, the applicant’s pleadings suggest that another individual who is a female was also subjected to discrimination and harassment. As such, it is clear that the allegations that he was targeted by the respondent to be discriminated and harassed against because he is male have no reasonable prospect of success.
10Having reviewed the Application and the applicant’s submissions, I find that though the applicant believes that he has been treated unfairly by the respondents there is no evidence proposed by the applicant to link this alleged unfairness to creed. For example, though he says that he makes less than Chinese teachers, he is unable to point to any evidence to support that and instead provides evidence that he makes more than another individual.
11The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to enquire into issues of unfairness that are not linked to the Code. I find that the applicant’s allegations that the respondent’s conduct is linked to his creed are bald allegations of discrimination and harassment. Though the applicant “believes” that this conduct is related to his creed, based on the materials that I have reviewed, this is pure speculation on his behalf. Further, with respect to his assertion that the respondent did not address his allegations of harassment and discrimination, I find that it was not unreasonable for the respondent to wait until the applicant returned to work to discuss the accusations that he made against his supervisors. The applicant never returned to work, so the issues could not be addressed by the respondent.
12In light of the foregoing, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
13The Application is dismissed
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of June, 2015.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair