Mark Vitlin v. Canada Bread Company Ltd. (Central Bakery), 2009 HRTO 1662

Editor’s Note: Corrigendum released October 26, 2009. Original judgment has been corrected accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mark Vitlin

Applicant

-and-

Canada Bread Company Ltd. (Central Bakery)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: October 13, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1662

Indexed as: Vitlin v. Canada Bread

1The applicant filed an Application on July 3, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges “reprisal or threat of reprisal” in employment. The respondent has filed a Response, and the applicant has not filed a Reply. The respondent has asked that the Application be dismissed, as the Application discloses no violation of the Code. This Interim Decision addresses issues of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the matters raised in the Application.

2Section 8 of the Code, which prohibits reprisals or threats of reprisal, 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.

3The applicant does not allege that 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.

4Moreover, the applicant has identified no ground of discrimination or basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated. The grounds of discrimination listed in section 5 of the Code in respect of employment are race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status and disability.

5The Application alleges threats and harassment, but does not identify what ground of discrimination is alleged by the applicant. The Application does not describe any events of the type listed in paragraph 7 above. The Tribunal does not have a general power to deal with alleged unfairness, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code.

6The applicant is self-represented, and has noted that he has language difficulties. For this reason, the Tribunal will give him a further opportunity to explain why he feels that he has suffered “reprisal” for the purposes of the Code. The applicant is required to deliver to the respondents, and file with the Tribunal, written submissions that identify what personal characteristics listed in section 5 of the Code are at issue in his Application, and why he feels that he was the victim of reprisal as described in this decision. Such submissions must be delivered and filed by no later than October 29, 2009.

7At this point, the respondents are not required to file responses to the applicant’s submissions. The Tribunal will review the applicant’s submissions, and may dismiss the Application or issue further directions to the parties.

8I am not seized.