Another day another case where the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal dismisses an application alleging discrimination on the basis of employment because the Tribunal does not entertain bald allegations that are not tied into a prohibitive ground under the Human Rights Code. The case is Eamon v. Riley’s Valu-Mart, 2016 HRTO 162 (CanLII) and the Tribunal reiterated that:
Expectations that an individual will work hard, perform the duties of his position, and only take breaks when allowed to do so, do not constitute a violation of the Code. The applicant may perceive such requirements as unfair, however, the Tribunal does not deal with allegations of unfairness, but only with treatment that is discriminatory on an enumerated ground under the Code.
The applicant alleges that he was “talked down to” and told to “get back to work”. Even if true, the Tribunal has indicated that even “a demeaning tone” (Ahmed v. VPI, 2010 HRTO 1855 (CanLII) at para. 45) or “rudeness” (Fisher v. Sheidow, 2011 HRTO 2332 (CanLII) at para. 18) are not, in and of themselves, evidence of discrimination as opposed to frustration at the applicant.
On the facts of this case, there was no link to a prohibited ground. While an applicant might feel upset, frustrated or otherwise hard-done by, that, on it's own, is not sufficient. There must be evidence presented that suggests a link to a prohibited ground or "evidence that would allow the Tribunal to draw an inference of discrimination."
