HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Farid Merzougui
Applicant
-and-
Acorn Stairlifts (Canada) Inc.
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Merzougui v Acorn Stairlifts (Canada) Inc.
APPEARANCES
Farid Merzougui, Applicant
Self-represented
Acorn Stairlifts (Canada) Inc, Respondent
Courtney Lerman, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
2The applicant filed a previous Application, 2014-18897-I which was settled when the parties signed Minutes of Settlement ("MOS") on April 13, 2015. As a term of the MOS, the applicant signed a Full and Final Release ("Release").
3After signing the MOS and the Release, the applicant asked the respondent for a letter of reference. This request for a letter of reference was made through an email from the applicant's counsel to the respondent's counsel on April 22, 2015. The applicant acknowledged that this was not a term of the MOS in an email dated April 23, 2015.
4In its Response, the respondent sought the dismissal of the Application on the basis that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release. The applicant opposed the request arguing that the events described in the Application post-dated the Release.
5Having reviewed this Application and Response, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, 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.
6The applicant alleges reprisal. In particular the applicant alleges that the respondent would not provide him with a reference letter as opposed to an employment letter. He alleges that this refusal was reprisal for filing Application 2014-18897-I.
7The respondent asserts that it is its policy and was its policy at the time that the applicant asked for the letter of reference to never provide reference letters to its former employees.
Analysis and Decision
8Section 8 of the Code states:
Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal
9The reprisal section of the Code only applies to actions that are intended as a reprisal for asserting one's human rights. See Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. 31. To proceed with the allegations of reprisal, there must be a reasonable basis to believe that the applicant could establish such intention with respect to the prior Application.
10The applicant alleges that some other employees, who had left the respondent's employment before he did, had received letters of reference. The applicant left the respondent's employment in November 2014. A new human resources manager began her employment in October 2014 and the policy to not provide letters of reference began in October 2014.
11Whether other employees had received letters of reference is not relevant to the issue of whether the respondent's refusal to provide the applicant with a letter of reference was an act of reprisal against him for having claimed his rights under the Code. In order to demonstrate that he had a reasonable prospect of succeeding on his Application, the applicant has to point to any evidence he has or could have to demonstrate that the respondent's refusal to provide the letter of reference was an intended act of reprisal for filing the Application 2014-18897-I. He did not point to any such evidence.
12The applicant has no reasonable prospect of demonstrating, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent's decision to not provide a letter of reference for him was an intentional act of reprisal because he had claimed or enforced his rights under the Code.
ORDER
13The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of October, 2016.
"Signed By"
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair