Peter Georgakopoulos v. Apple Canada Inc., 2016 HRTO 973

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Georgakopoulos Applicant

-and-

Apple Canada Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Bruce Best Date: July 25, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 973 Indexed as: Georgakopoulos v. Apple Canada Inc.

APPEARANCES

Peter Georgakopoulos, Applicant Self-represented

Apple Canada Inc., Respondent Brian Feeley, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability 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. The summary hearing proceeded by conference call on July 22, 2016.

3One of the issues raised in the CAD was that the allegations appeared to be with respect to the actions of an individual who was not an employee of the respondent. The applicant clarified that he was not pursuing any allegations against that individual or her employer in this Application, but indicated that those allegations were part of a separate Application filed with the Tribunal at the same time (Tribunal File No. 2015-21978-I). He further clarified that the allegations in the present Application were only with respect to his interaction with an employee of the respondent.

4The applicant provided additional details respecting the evidence he would present to establish his claim that he had been discriminated against by the respondent, including some details respecting an initial incident where he claims to have requested an accommodation on the basis of his disability, and subsequent incidents in which he claims the respondent again refused to provide him with service. Given the proposed evidence, I am not prepared to dismiss the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success for the purposes of Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

5Under Rule 19.6A, I am not required to provide reasons for this decision. In the circumstances of this case, particularly given my directions respecting amendments to the pleadings below, I find it is neither necessary nor appropriate to do so.

Amendments to Pleadings

6Though the applicant did provide some further details at the summary hearing, the information provided in the Application and Reply was insufficient to permit a meaningful Response to the allegations. Rule 6.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states as follows:

A complete Application must provide the information requested in every section of the Application form and the related supplemental form(s) and Form 4A, 4B or 27 (if applicable), and must set out all the facts that form the substance of the allegations of discrimination including the circumstances of what happened, where and when it happened, and the names of person(s) or organization(s) alleged to have violated the Applicant's rights under the Code. [emphasis added]

7The applicant is therefore directed, within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, to file with the Tribunal, copied to the respondent, an amended Application setting out details respecting each incident of alleged discrimination, including dates, the circumstances, and details of the conversations or other communications that the applicant believes are evidence of discrimination, including reference to any witnesses or documentary evidence that may support the applicant's allegations.

8I note also that the Application indicates that the last incident of alleged discrimination by the respondent occurred on September 13, 2014, and as such some of the incidents may have occurred more than one year prior to the Application being filed on September 11, 2015. In order to be within the one-year limitation period under s.34(1)(a) of the Code, in his amended Application the applicant will need to provide details of the last incident, and how it and the earlier incidents constitute may constitute a series for the purposes of s.34(1)(b) of the Code.

9The respondent may, within 35 days of receiving the amended Application, file an amended Response in accordance with Rule 8, copied to the applicant. The applicant may, within 21 days after receiving the amended Response, file an amended Reply in accordance with Rule 9, copied to the respondent.

10The fact that I am allowing the Application to proceed after a summary hearing does not mean I have made any finding about the merits of the Application. It simply means that I have found that the applicant has raised allegations and referred to evidence which, if established or found to be credible, could lead to a finding of discrimination. As the full details of the allegations have not yet been set out by the applicant, this decision is also made without prejudice to the respondent's ability to challenge any of the allegations on a preliminary or other basis once the amended Application has been filed.

11I also note that the parties have agreed to mediation. As such the Tribunal shall schedule a mediation in this matter in the normal course.

12I am not seized.