Lecuyer v. McNeil, 2016 HRTO 916

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Veronica Lecuyer Applicant

-and-

Brian McNeil and Shawn McDougal Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: July 12, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 916 Indexed as: Lecuyer v. McNeil

APPEARANCES

Veronica Lecuyer, Applicant Self-represented

Brian McNeil and Shawn McDougal, Respondents Nicole Singh, Counsel

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

2The respondents do not agree that the applicant experienced discrimination because of age or any other Code-protected ground.

3When the Tribunal reviewed the Application, it was not clear what evidence would be available to support the allegation of discrimination because of age.

4The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing that a summary hearing be held to determine if the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Case Assessment Direction explained that the Tribunal does not have a general jurisdiction to deal with all allegations of unfair treatment and that to succeed an applicant must be able to provide evidence to show that the unfair treatment was related to a Code-protected ground. A summary hearing allows an applicant to explain the allegations and to identify evidence that may be available to support the allegations of discrimination.

5The summary hearing was held by telephone conference call on July 8, 2016. The applicant and the respondents participated.

6I asked the applicant to explain why she believes that she experienced discrimination because of age.

7The applicant explained that when she started work she had a supervisor who was very supportive of her and told her that she was a great worker. She then changed shifts and Mr. McDougall became her supervisor. She said that he never talked to her and never raised any concerns about her performance and she was then fired. She emphasized that she believes that she was not treated fairly and that the termination of her employment was unjust.

8I explained to the applicant that this Tribunal does not have the power to deal with allegations of general unfairness. For the Tribunal to have power to do deal with allegations of unfairness there must be evidence that the unfair treatment was related to a Code-protected ground. The applicant indicated that she thinks that her age may have been a factor in regards to her employment and the end of that employment. The applicant indicated that she is in her early 50s.

9I asked the applicant to explain what evidence would be available to show that her age was a factor if the Application were to go ahead. The applicant said that the idea that her age was a factor is really just a suspicion because she cannot find any other explanation for the unfair treatment.

10She said that the main evidence in support of her suspicion that age may have been a factor is that the other workers on her team were younger people. She noticed that the supervisor spoke to them but did not speak to her. She referred to a text that she received from a co-worker who confirmed that the other workers on the team were younger people. The applicant said that she had no other evidence to support her suspicion.

11For the Application to be successful, the applicant would have to have some evidence beyond a suspicion that her age was a factor in the unfair treatment she alleges she experienced. In my view, the fact that the applicant's co-workers were younger people would not be enough to successfully establish discrimination because of age.

12I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish that her age was a factor in the unfair treatment that she alleges she experienced during her employment or in respect of the decision to end her employment. The Application is dismissed on that basis.