Ontario worker had no evidence linking treatment to protected ground
A worker’s discrimination complaint has been dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal because it was based on speculation and no concrete evidence.
The worker was an employee of Paragon Protection Limited, a company providing security personnel. The worker was of East Indian descent.
On Dec. 10, 2016, Paragon assigned the worker to be a concierge at a condominium building managed by Brookfield/Crossbridge Property Management. Part of their job duties involved enforcing parking in visitor spots with vehicles that had expired or no parking permits.
According to the worker, they experienced “a lot of harassment, threats and intimidation” while enforcing visitor parking spots. When they issued tickets, visitors and building residents argued with them and displayed angry and intimidating behaviour. The worker claimed that on one occasion, a resident used “the N-word” and told the worker that they could be deported.
Alleged poor treatment
The worker also usually worked the night shift, so they had to clean up garbage and spills as well as spread salt on the walkways in winter, although it wasn’t in the job description. A resident complained about cutting their foot on broken glass and the office administrator angrily told the worker to clean it up next time.
At one point, the worker suffered from laryngitis and was unable to speak into the intercom, but felt that Paragan didn’t accommodate them. He also suffered from asthma and allergies, which were aggravated during early morning garbage pickup.
In January 2019, the worker was told to turn off a valve. However, the valve was under pressure with steaming hot water and suffered a second-degree burn to their right hand, causing them to miss two days of work. The worker filed a workers’ compensation claim and a member of the condominium board told him to “next time wear gloves.”
In June 2019, the worker was injured again and made another workers’ compensation claim. He took a seven-month medical leave, but didn’t return to work.
Discrimination complaint
On May 28, 2020, he filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of ancestry, colour, disability, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race.
The worker claimed that they had complained to Paragon about his treatment, but nothing was done and, after his complaint, they were required to perform additional tasks while continuing to be subjected to abuse from residents. He also said that Paragon was aware that he was racialized but failed to take steps to address the discriminatory treatment to which he was subjected.
Paragon denied that the worker reported any abuse or use of the “N-word.” It also argued that laryngitis was a normal ailment that wasn’t a disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the worker never requested accommodation for his allergies or asthma.
The tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine if the worker’s application had a reasonable prospect of success that warranted a full hearing.
Belief not evidence of discrimination
The tribunal found that the worker didn’t provide any evidence that demonstrated that discrimination had occurred in the workplace. There were no documented complaints or requests for accommodation from him, and nothing indicating that any poor treatment from residents or the company were related to a prohibited ground under the code.
“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 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 application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. See John v. Brookfield/Crossbridge Property Management Inc., 2024 HRTO 1129.
