Dhillon v. Winners Merchants International L.P., 2017 HRTO 963

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Susan Dhillon

Applicant

-and-

Winners Merchants International L.P.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: July 28, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 963

Indexed as: Dhillon v. Winners Merchants International L.P.

APPEARANCES

Susan Dhillon, Applicant

Self-represented

Winners Merchants International L.P., Respondent

Allison Taylor, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis.

2On June 16, 2016, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent discriminated against her with respect to employment because of her race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability, and subjected her to reprisal.

3On October 3, 2016, the respondent filed a Response, which denied the allegations of discrimination and reprisal.

4On February 2, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, which directed that a summary hearing be held to decide whether the Application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it has no reasonable prospect of success.

5On July 20, 2017, the summary hearing took place by teleconference. Both parties made oral submissions.

6Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides for a summary hearing, following which an application may be dismissed, in whole or in part, if the Tribunal finds that there is no reasonable prospect that the application or part of the application will succeed. The approach to deciding whether an application has a reasonable prospect of success following a summary hearing was explained as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 8-9:

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

7I am not satisfied at this preliminary stage that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. Rule 19A.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules states that where the Tribunal decides not to dismiss an Application following a summary hearing, it need not give reasons. However, I will point out that the applicant and the respondent have different versions of several of the key facts that occurred with respect to the issues of discrimination and reprisal. Credibility issues of this nature cannot be resolved at a summary hearing. Furthermore, assuming without deciding that the applicant’s version of the facts is true, it cannot be said that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

8The Tribunal will schedule a two-day hearing of the merits of the Application.

9The Tribunal makes the following order and direction:

1. The Application is not dismissed on a preliminary basis.

2. The Tribunal will schedule a two-day hearing of the merits of the Application.

10I am not seized of this matter.