Killeen v. Soncin Construction, 2009 HRTO 1785

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

David Killeen Applicant

-and-

Soncin Construction Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: October 27, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1785 Indexed as: Killeen v. Soncin Construction

1This is an Application filed on April 3, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2On the Application form, the applicant has checked “record of offences” as the ground alleged as the basis of his claim of discrimination in employment. He has also checked “reprisal”. In the written portions of the form, among other things, the applicant alleges that the respondent, his employer, has forged his signature on documents and is “constantly lying” to his union and to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the WSIB). The applicant states that he “thought record of offences had to do with paperwork.” He also states, in answer to the question of how he has experienced reprisal, “I believe they are trying to punish me for telling the truth to WSIB”.

3The respondent filed a Response as well as a Request for an Order During Proceedings. In both, the respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application. Although it disputes the assertions of the applicant, it states that the allegations fall outside of the scope of the Code and the Tribunal should decline to deal with this matter based on a lack of jurisdiction.

4The applicant has not filed a Reply, nor has he responded to the Request for Order.

5On the basis of the material in the Application, it appears that the matters raised by the Application may be outside the scope of the Code.

6The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into all claims of unfair treatment or wrongdoing in the workplace. Its jurisdiction is based on the Code. Section 5 of the Code prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

7While the Application alleges “record of offences” as the ground of discrimination, it does not allege the respondent’s behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of record of offences as defined in section 10(1) of the Code (see for example Gravino v. P.R. Maintenance, 2009 HRTO 516, de Pelham v. Mytrak Health Systems, 2009 HRTO 172).

8Further, although the Application alleges “reprisal or threat of reprisal” pursuant to s.8 of the Code, it does not allege the respondent’s behaviour was related 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 under the Code.

9The applicant may make written submissions explaining why he believes the Application is in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and should be decided by the Tribunal. He must provide these submissions to the Tribunal and to the respondent by November 17, 2009. The Tribunal will consider these submissions before deciding whether to dismiss or proceed with the Application, or require a response to the submissions from the respondent. If he does not file make submissions the Tribunal will assume he has abandoned the Application and it will be dismissed.

10The applicant may wish to review the provisions of the Human Rights Code noted above as well as the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Guides to its processes, all available on the Tribunal’s website at www.hrto.ca, before responding to this Interim Decision.

11I am not seized of this matter.