Sheri Anderson v. Town Shoes Limited and Crissi Giamos, 2009 HRTO 1786

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sheri Anderson Applicant

-and-

Town Shoes Limited and Crissi Giamos Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: October 27, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1786 Indexed as: Anderson v. Town Shoes

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 July 9, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment. "Reprisal or Threat of Reprisal" was the only ground of discrimination checked off in the Application. The Application describes numerous allegations of mistreatment.

2The 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.

3On August 25, 2009, the Tribunal issued Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application because, although the Application alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal as a ground of discrimination, the Application does not allege how the respondents' behaviour is 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.

4The applicant was invited to make submissions to the Tribunal, within 30 days of the date of the Notice, explaining why she believes the Application is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Notice also indicated that if she did not file written submissions, the Tribunal would make a decision based only on the information in the Application. To date, no submissions have been received from the applicant.

5The Application does not allege that the respondents' behaviour was in relation to reprisal within the meaning of the Code. In addition, the applicant has not identified any other ground of discrimination or basis upon which she alleges that the Code was violated.

6The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code. In the circumstances, I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.