Jack Brar v. 2369503 Ontario Inc. o/a Pearson Vision Limousine, 2016 HRTO 579

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jack Brar

Applicant

-and-

2369503 Ontario Inc. o/a Pearson Vision Limousine

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: May 3, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 579

Indexed as: Brar v. 2369503 Ontario Inc.

APPEARANCES

Jack Brar, Applicant

Kashif Raza and Haider Bahadur, Counsel

2369503 Ontario Inc. o/a Pearson Vision Limousine, Respondent

Stephanie Pope, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent reprised against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code").

2By Case Assessment Direction ("CAD"), the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to address whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.

3As explained more fully below, I find that the Application must be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success under the Code.

Summary Hearing Process

4The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure ("Rules") as well as the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests. The purpose of a summary hearing is to consider, early in the proceeding and usually before a Response is filed, whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part because there is no reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.

5The Tribunal cannot address allegations of unfairness that are unrelated to the Code. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to claims of discrimination that are linked to the protections set out in the Code.

6The test that is applied at the summary hearing stage is whether an application has no reasonable prospect of success. At this stage, the Tribunal is not determining whether the applicant is telling the truth or assessing the impact of the treatment he or she experienced. The test of no reasonable prospect of success is determined by assuming the applicant's version of events is true unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary or the evidence is not disputed by the applicant.

7However, and significantly, accepting the facts alleged by the applicant does not include accepting the applicant's assumptions about why he or she was treated unfairly. The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine whether the applicant is able to point to any information which tends to support his or her belief that he or she has experienced discrimination or reprisal under the Code. The question that the Tribunal must decide at a summary hearing is whether there is likely to be any evidence, or any evidence that may be reasonably available to the applicant to connect the unfair treatment allegedly experienced by the applicant with the Code's protections.

8As the Tribunal indicated in Forde v. Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 ("Forde"), for an Application to continue in the Tribunal's process following a summary hearing, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show a breach of the Code.

9Having set out the basic framework for determining whether an application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success, I now turn to this particular case.

application to the facts

10The applicant alleges that he was subject to reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Code. Section 8 of the Code addresses the circumstances in which a person is protected from reprisal or threat of reprisal: "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 for so doing."

11The intention of section 8 is to ensure that applicants are not subject to negative consequences because he or she has attempted to enforce Code protected human rights or has participated in a human rights matter. However, the applicant has not alleged any facts within the scope of section 8 of the Code. The applicant does not allege that he attempted to claim or enforce his rights under the Code, that he instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or that he refused to infringe the right of another person under the Code. Rather the narrative attached to the Application sets out an extensive listing of work related disputes.

12Based on this narrative, it is evident that the parties are engaged in a number of work-related disputes and that the applicant feels that he has been treated unfairly by the respondent. The Tribunal, however, does not resolve or adjudicate all workplace disputes and, as set out in Forde, above, general allegations of unfairness. The Tribunal's authority is to determine whether there has been discrimination on a ground prohibited by the Code or a reprisal for asserting one's Code rights.

13In my view, there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed.

Order

14For the above reasons, the Application is dismissed.