CITATION: Borba v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2014 ONSC 6312
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 214/13
DATE: 20141029
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
C. MCKINNON, SWINTON AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
CARLA BORBA Applicant
– and –
TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION and THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO Respondents
Abba E. Chima, for the Applicant
Lucy Siraco, for the Respondent, Toronto Transit Commission
Brian A. Blumenthal, for the Respondent, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
HEARD at Toronto: October 29, 2014
SWINTON J. (ORALLY)
[1] The standard of review on this application for judicial review, is reasonableness. The applicant has not demonstrated that the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to summarily dismiss her application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, was unreasonable.
[2] The Tribunal reasonably concluded that the incidents between April 2008 and September 2009 were unrelated to the incidents that were timely under s. 34(1)(a) of the Code. Therefore, the earlier incidents were not part of a “series of incidents” within the meaning of s. 34(1)(b) of the Code, but rather, were isolated events involving various co-workers, and the application with respect to these incidents was out of time.
[3] The Tribunal also reasonably concluded that there was no good faith explanation for the delay in filing the application.
[4] In the alternative, the Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success with respect to these allegations because the applicant did not show any way of proving her allegation that her experiences were a result of discrimination on the basis of sex or age.
[5] With respect to the events that allegedly occurred within the limitation period, the Tribunal reasonably concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant did not show how she could prove that the incidents were discriminatory on grounds such as sex, age or disability, nor how she could prove that systemic discrimination in her workplace on the basis of sex and age rendered those incidents in contravention of the Code.
[6] At a summary hearing, the Tribunal does not hear evidence, but rather assesses if the applicant has proposed evidence which likely establishes that the alleged discrimination occurs. We do not agree with the applicant that the Tribunal made findings of fact or credibility in the decision.
[7] There is no basis for this Court to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal that the application had no reasonable prospect of success. The decision was reasonable given the facts and the applicable legal principles. Similarly, the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the criteria for reconsideration had not been met. Therefore, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
COSTS
C. MCKINNON J.
[8] I have endorsed the back of the Application Record, “This application is dismissed for oral reasons delivered by Swinton J. Costs payable by the applicant to the respondent TTC fixed in the amount of $3,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within 6 months.”
SWINTON J.
C. MCKINNON J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 29, 2014
Date of Release: October 31, 2014
CITATION: Borba v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2014 ONSC 6312
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 214/13
DATE: 20141029
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
C. MCKINNON, SWINTON AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
CARLA BORBA Applicant
– and –
TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION and THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 29, 2014
Date of Release: October 31, 2014