Eudokia Opariek v. Collectcorp Inc., 2009 HRTO 1271

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Eudokia Opariek

Applicant

-and-

Collectcorp Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: August 17, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1271

Indexed as: Opariek v. Collectcorp Inc.

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on April 30, 2009 which alleges that the respondent discriminated against her with respect to employment because she had a record of offences. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

2In her Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent terminated her employment as a debt collector because it received a lawsuit from a debtor’s attorney, which falsely accused her of disclosing the debtor’s debt to his neighbour.

3On July 2, 2009, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, which informed the applicant that the Application appears to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it does not indicate how her circumstances fall within a ground or area of discrimination covered by the Code. Specifically, the Application does not allege that the respondent’s behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of record of offences as defined in the Code. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions within 30 days to explain why the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. To date, the Tribunal has not received any submissions from the applicant.

4Record of offences is defined in section 10(1) of the Code as follows:

“record of offences” means 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(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or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;

5The Application does not allege any facts which fall within the definition of record of offences. Specifically, the applicant does not allege that the respondent terminated her employment because she had a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon had been granted or an offence in respect of a provincial enactment.

6Accordingly, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application, and it is therefore dismissed.