'An applicant's belief, no matter how strongly held, is not evidence'
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed the application of a fired worker who believed that he had been discriminated against but had no evidence that might be able to establish a connection with his race, ethnicity, or citizenship.
The worker, who is a Kurd from Iraq and a Muslim, was employed as a meat clerk in the meat department of a grocery store operated by Metro Ontario. The store’s workforce was unionized and the worker was a member of the bargaining unit.
In an incident at work, the worker made a threat that he would “rape” a co-worker. The co-worker complained and, when Metro investigated, the worker agreed that he had used the term “rape” but not in a sexual sense. The worker also claimed that another co-worker had held a knife against his chest while he was wearing a protective safety vest and he had been poorly treated by other employees.
Metro investigated the worker’s allegations and determined that they were unfounded. At the same time, the worker filed a complaint with police, but the police found that, while the knife incident happened, there was “no intent behind the gesture.”
The worker filed a complaint with the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development, but after an investigation it also found no grounds to issue an order.
Termination after ‘rape’ threat
Metro terminated the worker’s employment for the “rape” threat, which the worker contested. The union filed a grievance, but decided not to pursue it in arbitration and withdrew the grievance.
The worker then filed an application to the tribunal alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of citizenship, colour, creed, ethnic origin, and race, as well as a poisoned work environment. He argued that he was the only non-white person in the meat department and his poisoned work environment and termination was because of that. He also alleged that the union’s treatment of his grievance was also discriminatory.
The tribunal noted that, in order to proceed to a hearing, the worker would have to show that he had evidence that could establish a link to his protected human rights characteristics and the adverse treatment he experienced. The worker indicated that he could obtain CCTV footage if available and a police report, although the bulk of his evidence was his own account of things.
The tribunal found that the worker’s version of events didn’t differ from Metro’s, as they agreed that there was an altercation with a co-worker during which the worker used the term “rape” and another altercation involving the knife and protective vest.
As turned out, the CCTV footage was only kept for 30 days and was no longer available. However, it didn’t really matter as all it would serve was to prove that the incidents happened, said the tribunal, noting that the police report served the same purpose.
Connection between adverse impact, protected characteristics
With no doubt about the occurrence of the “rape” comment and the knife incident, the worker had to show that the consequences he faced afterwards were related to his protected characteristics. However, he didn’t provide any, the tribunal said.
“For the purposes of a summary hearing, an applicant must be able to point to some evidence, beyond their own suspicions, that could make out a link to the [Ontario Human Rights] Code,” said the tribunal.
“The tribunal has repeatedly said that an applicant’s belief, no matter how strongly held, is not evidence upon which the tribunal might find that discrimination has occurred.”
The tribunal dismissed the worker’s applicant on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success in a hearing. See Wadi v. Metro Ontario Inc., 2024 HRTO 742.
