Tina Colamartino v. TransGlobe Property Management Services, 2009 HRTO 1177

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Tina Colamartino Applicant

-and-

TransGlobe Property Management Services Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: July 30, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1177 Indexed as: Colamartino v. TransGlobe Property Management Services

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") on March 3, 2009, alleging reprisal in employment.

BACKGROUND

2The respondent is the applicant's former employer. The applicant alleges that she was reprised against when she was laid off from her employment, despite earlier assurances that she would be kept on. The applicant further alleges that she experienced reprisal for raising concerns regarding workload issues and because she became privy to privileged information about an executive officer.

3By way of an earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 917, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions addressing the issue of whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Application. The Tribunal required the applicant to explain how her concerns of reprisal raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide.

4The Interim Decision noted that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment) on the basis of specific grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender and race, etc.). Section 8 of the Code prohibits reprisals as follows:

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 for so doing.

DECISION

5The applicant provided written submissions dated July 21, 2009, which reiterate her concern that she was discriminated against because of receipt of privileged information. She notes an additional concern that, despite being dismissed due to restructuring, the respondent hired an employee for her former department.

6As noted in the Interim Decision, the applicant clearly feels that she has been treated unfairly. However, although given the opportunity to explain the basis upon which her concerns relate to the grounds and areas protected by the Code, the applicant has not explained how her dismissal is connected to an attempt on her part "to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act". The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code. Neither in her Application, nor in her written submissions, did the applicant identify any ground of discrimination or basis upon which she alleges that the Code was violated.

7I find the Application does not make any allegations that relate to the grounds of discrimination under the Code, or allege that the actions of the respondent constituted a reprisal or threat of reprisal within the meaning of the Code. Consequently, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application, and accordingly, the Application is dismissed.