Matthews v. Stanley, 2008 HRTO 372

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sherry Matthews

Applicant

-and-

Michael Stanley

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: December 5, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 372

Indexed as: Matthews v. Stanley

1The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), alleging she had been discriminated against in employment, while employed by a company run by the named respondent. This decision addresses whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this Application.

2In an Interim Decision dated October 31, 2008, Matthews v. Stanley, 2008 HRTO 215, the Tribunal sought submissions from the applicant on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear this Application. The Interim Decision specifies that submissions were to be received by the Tribunal by November 14, 2008. To date, no submissions have been received, nor has the applicant requested an extension of time to make her submissions.

3In her Application, the applicant checked off “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as the alleged ground of discrimination. The applicant’s narrative, however, does not identify how the respondent subjected her to reprisal or threat of reprisal. On Form 1-A, which asks specific questions for employment discrimination applications, the applicant was asked why she felt she was reprised against. The applicant’s response to that question is that she is “not sure why,” but offers the explanation that the respondent was angry and abusive and appeared to “take his anger out on the first person he could.”

4Section 8 of the Code, which prohibits reprisals or threat of reprisals, states:

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.

5The applicant does not allege, in either her Application or her Reply dated October 30, 2008, the respondent’s behaviour was in response to any of the following:

• Claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
• Instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or
• Refusing to infringe the right of another person.

6Moreover, the applicant has identified no other ground of discrimination or basis upon which she alleges that the Code was violated. The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment relationships or dismissals, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.

7This Application is dismissed.