CCPartners | Blog

No Chance: HRTO Dismisses Application for Lack of Prima Facie Case and No Reasonable Prospect of Success

In Loucks v. London Life Insurance Company, 2023 HRTO 955 the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario determined that the Applicant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the Application because it stood no reasonable prospect of success.

The Applicant was a former employee of the Company who initiated the Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. The Applicant held a number of positions with the Company and was employed as an Administrative Support Clerk from May 2014 until her dismissal in July 2017.

The Applicant took a number of medical leaves of absence during her employment with the Company, and ultimately applied for disability benefits, for which she had a claim approved until April 7, 2017. The Applicant returned to full-time duties on April 17, 2017.

In or around June 2017, the Applicant was seen by other employees stealing food from the cafeteria. The Company subsequently terminated the Applicant’s employment for cause.  

The Applicant alleged in her Application that she suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and requested a loan from the Company to assist her during the transition period of return to work.  The Applicant submitted that returning from her disability leave left her “broke” and that the Company would not advance her any money so she began stealing from the cafeteria to survive. The Applicant stated that she was “discriminated due to my BiPolar II”.

The Company maintained its position that the Applicant’s employment was terminated for cause for engaging in fraudulent activity and that there was no breach of the Code.

The Tribunal determined by way of summary hearing that the Application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the Application. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal reiterated that the Application must allege sufficient facts to establish a prima facie breach of the Code.  A prima facie case “is one which covers the allegations made and which, if they are believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a finding in the applicant’s favour in the absence of an answer from the respondent” (para 22).

The Tribunal elaborated that a prima facie case is not met by the Applicant simply alleging that she was treated unfairly by the Company as the “the Code doe not provide a remedy for general allegations of unfairness” (para 23). Rather, “there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to be believe that an applicant could show a breach of the Code” in order to continue in the Tribunal’s process (para 23).

The Tribunal stated that “for an Application to advance to a full hearing on the merits, an applicant must be able to point to some evidence, beyond his or her own suspicions, that could make out a link to the Code” (para 24). Furthermore, “an applicant’s belief, no matter how strongly held, is not evidence upon which the Tribunal might find that discrimination has occurred” (para 24).

Key Takeaways

This is a welcome decision for employers, and shows that the Tribunal will use the summary hearing process to dismiss applications which are exclusively based on an applicant’s own beliefs with no supporting evidence. While it is seemingly easy for employees to raise arguments of discrimination if there are any factors that might be connected to the Code, it is reassuring to see the Tribunal maintain a standard of review and recognize that the mere existence of a tangential Code-related condition is not akin to establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

If your organization needs guidance on how to remain compliant with the Human Rights Code or has been named in a Human Rights Application, the professionals at CCPartners can provide representation, legal advice, policy implementation, and training, tailored to your unique circumstances.

Click HERE to access CCPartners' “Lawyers for Employers” podcasts on important workplace issues and developments in labour and employment law.