Placide v. Kavas, 2009 HRTO 1093

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lee-Ann Placide

Applicant

-and-

Martina Kavas and Mark O’Neil

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: July 21, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1093

Indexed as: Placide v. Kavas

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 that the respondents discriminated against her in respect of employment on the basis of record of offences.

2On May 15, 2009, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application. The Notice states that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it “d[id] not allege that the respondent’s behavior was related to discrimination on the basis of “record of offences” [as] defined in the Code”.

3The applicant was given an opportunity to file written submissions explaining why she believes the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Notice indicated that if the applicant did not file submissions in this regard by June 15, 2009, the Tribunal would make its decision based on the information in her Application.

4The applicant did not file written submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Tribunal must therefore determine whether it has jurisdiction over the application based on the information in the Application.

5Section 10(1) of the Code defines “record of offences” as a conviction for:

(a) An offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked; or

(b) An offence in respect of any provincial enactment.

6According to the Application, the applicant was commenting during an elevator ride at her workplace that the dismissal of a coworker at the behest of a specific manager had been unfair. As it turned out, the manager in question was in the elevator at the time and, according to the applicant, must have overheard her. The applicant alleges that the respondents “harassed” and ultimately terminated her employment based on the incident.

7The applicant indicates that “record of offences” is the basis upon which the respondents discriminated against her. However, on the relevant part of the Application form, the applicant answered “no” to the questions “Do you believe you were discriminated against because of your record of offences under a federal law (Criminal Code offence)?” and “Do you believe you were harassed or discriminated against because of your record of offences under provincial law (such as the Highway Traffic Act)?”. Moreover, the applicant’s narrative did not allege that the respondents’ actions were based on her record of offences, as that term is defined in the Code or otherwise.

8The Tribunal’s power to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code, which, among other things, prohibits discrimination and harassment with respect to employment on the basis of the grounds set out in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness which are not covered by the Code.

9There are no facts alleged in the Application to support the allegation that the applicant has a “record of offences” within the meaning of the Code or that the respondents’ alleged actions were based on that or any other prohibited ground of discrimination. I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.