View source for Scope of Jurisdiction (Human Rights Tribunal)

Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

• The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, editors.
• You do not have permission to edit pages in the Case Law namespace.

---

You can view and copy the source of this page.

[[Category:Human Rights]] [[Category:Medical Disability]] {{Citation: | categories = [Human Rights], | shortlink = https://rvt.link/ei }} ==Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 (CanLII)<ref name="Forde"/>== [15] I address next the question of whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. The approach on a summary hearing was set out in <i>Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994</i><ref name="Dabic"/> at paras. 7-10: ::A summary hearing is generally ordered at an early stage in the process. In some cases, the respondent may not have been required to provide a response. In others, the respondent may have responded but disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and the preparation of witness statements, which generally occur following the Notice of Hearing, will not yet have happened. ::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. <b><u>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.</b></u> ::In considering what evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, the Tribunal must be attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, information about the reasons for the actions taken by a respondent are within the sole knowledge of the respondent. Evidence about the reasons for actions taken by a respondent may sometimes come through the disclosure process and through cross-examination of the people involved. <b><u>The Tribunal must consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that such evidence may lead to a finding of discrimination. However, when there is no reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her case on a balance of probabilities, the application must be dismissed following the summary hearing.</b></u> [16] Based on the Application, the relevant provisions of the Code are as follows: ::5. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability. ::(2) Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability. ::8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing. ::12. A right under Part I is infringed where the discrimination is because of relationship, association or dealings with a person or persons identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination. [17] The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code or the intention by a respondent to commit a reprisal for asserting one’s Code rights. [18] The applicant has referred to the concept of prima facie discrimination. In my view, this concept is not helpful in interpreting the Tribunal’s summary hearing rule. In human rights law, prima facie discrimination has been used to mean various things. In some contexts – for example <i>Ontario Human Rights Comm. v. Simpsons-Sears, 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536</i><ref name="Simpsons-Sears"/> and <i>Jagait v. IN TECH Risk Management, 2009 HRTO 779</i><ref name="Jagait"/> -- the term is used to refer to what claimant must show to avoid having a claim dismissed without requiring a respondent to call evidence. In others – for example <i>Arias v. Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples, 2009 HRTO 1024</i><ref name="Shuparski"/> -- it refers to whether, assuming the allegations to be true, there is discrimination. In yet others – for example <i>Ontario (Disability Support Program) v. Tranchemontagne, 2010 ONCA 593 (C.A.)</i><ref name="Tranchemontagne"/> – it refers to what is required for a claimant to demonstrate discrimination within the meaning of the Code. <b><u>In my view, it is much more helpful and understandable to parties to simply speak in the summary hearing context about whether there is a reasonable prospect the application will succeed as set out in Dabic. Accordingly, whether there is a reasonable prospect the applicant can prove a violation of the Code is the issue that was explained in the Case Assessment Direction and on the telephone during the summary hearing.</b></u> <ref name="Forde">Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/fmhm3>, retrieved on 2024-12-04</ref> <ref name="Simpsons-Sears">Ont. Human Rights Comm. v. Simpsons-Sears, 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 536, <https://canlii.ca/t/1ftxz>, retrieved on 2024-12-04</ref> <ref name="Jagait">Jagait v. IN TECH Risk Management, 2009 HRTO 779 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/240kj>, retrieved on 2024-12-04</ref> <ref name="Shuparski">Shuparski v. Toronto (City), 2009 HRTO 1024 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/24kvv>, retrieved on 2024-12-04</ref> <ref name="Tranchemontagne">Ontario (Disability Support Program) v. Tranchemontagne, 2010 ONCA 593 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2ckz1>, retrieved on 2024-12-04</ref> <ref name="Dabic">Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2cs0c>, retrieved on 2024-12-04</ref> ==Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 (CanLII)<ref name="Pieters"/>== [59] While the word "nexus" is perfectly acceptable, I think it preferable to continue to use the terms more commonly used in the jurisprudence developed under the Code. <b><u>All that is required is that there be a "connection" between the adverse treatment and the ground of discrimination. The ground of discrimination must somehow be a "factor" in the adverse treatment.</b></u> [60] I do not think it acceptable, however, to attach the modifier "causal" to "nexus". Doing so seems to me to elevate the test beyond what the law requires. The Divisional Court's requirement of a "causal nexus" or a "causal link" between the adverse treatment and a prohibited ground seems counter to the evolution of human rights jurisprudence, which focuses on the [page94 ]discriminatory effects of conduct, rather than on intention and direct cause. [61] I conclude that the Divisional Court erred in law by applying an incorrect and stricter test of discrimination in deciding this case. This error necessarily affected the Divisional Court's analysis of whether the evidence could reasonably satisfy the test for discrimination. ... [69] Shaw is an example of such a case. Shaw involved allegations similar to those in this case. In responding to the applicant's evidence, the respondent did not seek to invoke a statutory exception but merely sought to lead evidence to persuade the vice-chair his conduct was not discriminatory. Lang J.A. said, at para. 12, "This means that the onus lies on the complainant to establish discrimination on the balance of probabilities and that, if the complainant does so, the evidentiary burden shifts to the respondent" (emphasis added). [70] The shifting of the evidential burden, as opposed to the burden of proof, is common in innumerable other legal contexts. For example, in criminal law, which is fastidious in maintaining the legal burden of proof on the Crown, accused confronted with evidence that they are in recent possession of stolen goods face the prospect of an inference of theft unless they explain how they came into possession of the goods. Only the evidential burden has shifted. The accused maintains the unquestioned right to remain silent. However, the accused faces the tactical choice of explaining or risking being found guilty. [71] Sopinka J. explained the difference between the burden of proof and the evidential burden in <i>Snell v. Farrell, 1990 CanLII 70 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311, [1990] S.C.J. No. 73</i><ref name="Snell"/>, a medical malpractice case. Medical malpractice cases are an apt comparison to discrimination cases because as Sopinka J. observed, at p. 322 S.C.R., "The physician is usually in a better position to know the cause of an injury than the patient." At pp. 328-29 S.C.R., he said that in medical malpractice cases because "the facts lie particularly within the knowledge of the defendant . . . very little affirmative evidence on the part of the plaintiff will justify the drawing of an inference of causation in the absence of evidence to the contrary". He recognized that "[t]his has been expressed in terms of shifting the burden of proof " and went on to explain why that is not correct. At pp. 329-30 S.C.R., he said: ::<i><b><u>It is not strictly accurate to speak of the burden shifting to the defendant when what is meant is that evidence adduced by the plaintiff may result in an inference being drawn adverse to the defendant</b></u>. <u>Whether an inference is or is not drawn is a matter of weighing evidence. The defendant runs the risk of an adverse inference in the absence of evidence to the contrary</u>. This is sometimes referred to as imposing on the defendant a provisional or tactical burden. In my opinion, this is not a true burden of proof, and use of an additional label to describe what is an ordinary step in the fact-finding process is unwarranted.</i> <ref name="Snell">Snell v. Farrell, 1990 CanLII 70 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 311, <https://canlii.ca/t/1fstw>, retrieved on 2024-06-10</ref> <ref name="Stanley">Stanley v. Shanti Enterprises Limited o/a Royal Terrace Long Term Care and Retirement Home, 2024 HRTO 558 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k4c9q>, retrieved on 2024-06-10</ref> <ref name="Garofalo">Garofalo v. Cavalier Hair Stylists Shop Inc., 2013 HRTO 170 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/fvzw8>, retrieved on 2024-06-10</ref> <ref name="Wedley">Wedley v. Northview Co-operative Homes Inc., 2008 HRTO 13 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/1vvbz>, retrieved on 2024-06-10</ref> <ref name="Pieters">Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/fz590>, retrieved on 2024-06-10</ref> ==References==

Return to Scope of Jurisdiction (Human Rights Tribunal).