Coloman Jakob v. ForestCare Corporation and Judy Wood, 2009 HRTO 1305

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Coloman Jakob

Applicant

-and-

ForestCare Corporation and Judy Wood

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: August 24, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1305

Indexed as: Jakob v. ForestCare

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 discrimination in terms of the treatment he received while employed and his termination from employment. The applicant checked off “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as the alleged ground of discrimination in his Application.

2On Form 1-A, which asks specific questions for employment discrimination applications, the applicant was asked why he felt he was reprised against, to which the applicant responded, “I was reprised against because I tryed [sic] to explain my rights, duties under company policy and Human Rights Code”. There are no other facts in the Application which explain the basis for the applicant’s belief that he was subjected to reprisal or threat of reprisal.

3In an Interim Decision, Jakob v. ForestCare, 2009 HRTO 379, the Tribunal requested that the applicant make submissions to explain how his Application raises matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Those submissions were received by the Tribunal but did not satisfactorily explain the basis for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. A telephone conference call involving the parties was held on August 20, 2009, at which time the applicant was given an opportunity to make further submissions about the claim of reprisal as set out in the Application.

4The applicant submitted that in the meeting with his supervisor which led to his dismissal, the supervisor indicated that she did not want to hear the applicant’s comments, and that she was not fair, impartial or prepared to hear both sides of the story (in relation to an incident between the applicant and a forklift driver). He stated that his supervisor had an obligation to hear his side of the story, and he asserted that his rights to free speech and the right to express oneself were breached by the supervisor and therefore the company. He further submitted that if an employee was not doing his job to the satisfaction of his employer, the employer had an obligation to bring that to the attention of the employee in order to work it out.

5Section 8 of the Code 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.

6The applicant has not alleged in the Application nor has he explained how the respondents’ 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.

7The Tribunal's jurisdiction is exclusively based on the provisions of the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment relationships or dismissals, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code.

8The applicant has not alleged any facts which would constitute a reprisal or threat of reprisal, or which would otherwise demonstrate a violation of the Code. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as being outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, pursuant to rule 13.1 of the Tribunal's Rules.