Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Paul Bernard
Applicant
-and-
Innovapost
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Sophie Martel
Indexed as: Bernard v. Innovapost
APPEARANCES
Paul Bernard, Applicant
Self-represented
Innovapost, Respondent
Matthew G. Scott, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant filed an Application alleging that the corporate respondent and two personal respondents discriminated against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges age discrimination in employment and contract.
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 and whether the two personal respondents should be removed as parties.
3As explained more fully below, the personal respondents are removed as parties and from the style of cause on consent. I further find that the Application must be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success under the Code. Even if I accepted all of the facts alleged by the applicant as true, the applicant has not been able to point to any evidence beyond his own suspicions that age was a factor in the respondent’s actions.
Factual Background
4Through various companies from 2006 to 2015, the applicant provided IT personal resources to the respondent. In particular, the applicant provided a contractor, N.F. (the “contractor”), to the respondent through the companies he was associated with until 2015. The applicant’s companies billed the respondent for the contractor’s work and retained a portion of his hourly rate. The contractor’s agreement with one of the applicant’s earlier companies contained a restrictive covenant that prohibited him from working for companies to whom the company provided services.
5In late 2015, the contractor asked the applicant to release him from his contract and restrictive covenant on the basis that the respondent would no longer use his services if he was not released. At that time, the applicant was focused on family-related issues and was also concerned about standing in the way of the contractor’s livelihood. The applicant asked the contractor to have the respondent phone him to discuss the issue. The contractor and one of the personal respondents eventually phoned him to provide him with the wording to release the contractor from the contract and covenant. The applicant subsequently emailed the release with the wording provided by the respondent. The contractor then continued to work with the respondent but through another supplier. After the release, the applicant no longer retained a portion of the contractor’s hourly billings.
6A few months later, an acquaintance of the applicant, who worked for the respondent, inquired as to why he no longer represented the contractor. When the applicant explained what had transpired, the acquaintance responded that such actions violated the respondent’s supplier practices and policies. The acquaintance expressed the view that the applicant had not been fairly treated.
7The applicant tried to obtain further information from the respondent through a manager (one of the personal respondents). She advised that she would conduct an investigation and get back to him. She subsequently advised that the investigation did not find fault with the respondent’s actions and conduct.
8In essence, the applicant submits that he released the contractor from his contract as a result of the respondent’s “falsehoods”. He alleges that the respondent’s actions were illogical since it could have simply let their contract lapse without renewal. Instead, the respondent forced the applicant to release the contractor from the contract and covenant using falsehoods. Since the respondent acted illogically and unfairly, it must have been motivated by the applicant’s age and stage in life. The applicant believes that the respondent forced him to break the contract because it believed the applicant would not fight back as a result of his age.
PERSONAL RESPONDENTS
9Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party. The respondent asked that the issue concerning the personal respondents be addressed first and that their names not form part of the style of cause. The respondent submits that there are no allegations that the personal respondents were acting outside the course of their employment. No specific remedies are sought against them.
10The corporate respondent admits vicarious responsibility and can respond to the allegations of the Application. For confidentiality reasons, the personal respondents ask that their names be excluded from the style of cause.
11After hearing the respondents’ submissions on this issue, the applicant consented to the removal of the personal respondents as parties, on the understanding that the corporate respondent is vicariously liable for their actions. The corporate respondent does not dispute being vicariously liable for the actions of the personal respondents.
12On consent, the personal respondents are removed from the Application and the style of cause is amended to reflect this change.
SUMMARY HEARING PROCESS
13The 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 whether an application should be dismissed in whole or in part because there is no reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.
14The 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.
15The 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 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.
16Accepting the facts alleged by the applicant does not include, however, accepting the applicant’s assumptions about why he 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 belief that he experienced discrimination or reprisal under the [