Jan Rajca v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, 2009 HRTO 199

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jan Rajca

Applicant

-and-

Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: February 24, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 199

Indexed as: Rajca v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) on December 15, 2008 alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of record of offences.

2In its earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 81, the Tribunal identified a threshold jurisdictional issue and directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the Application, and in particular explaining whether he had a “record of offences” within the meaning of the Code. The Interim Decision referred the applicant to the Applicant’s Guide and advised that the Tribunal may consider whether the Application should be dismissed under Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which permits it to dismiss all or part of an application that is outside its jurisdiction.

3Further to the Interim Decision, the applicant filed submissions with the Tribunal. The applicant stated that the issues in his Application invoke his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and specifically his rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. The applicant submits that the issue in dispute in his Application is about his ability to engage in engineering services in Canada without being forced to be a member of an association. He submits that a Court Order issued by the Superior Court of Ontario and obtained by the respondent in October 2008, amongst other things, prohibits his ability to represent himself as an engineer without being licensed by the respondent, and discriminates against him, his education and his working experiences. He submits that as an individual holding a university degree in engineering, he should be able to represent himself as an engineer, and work as an engineer, without being a member of an association. He requests that the Tribunal reverse the Court Order. The applicant did not make any submissions addressing how the “record of offences” he marked off on his Application falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as was required by the Interim Decision.

4While the respondent was not required to file a Response pursuant to the Interim Decision, it filed one. In the Response, the respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the Application because another proceeding (the Court proceeding which resulted in the Court Order) in whole or in part had dealt with the substance of the Application pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code.

5For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal dismisses the Application as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the matters raised in the Application. Therefore, the Tribunal does not need to address the respondent’s request.

6Under the Code, allegations of discrimination on the basis of “record of offences” only apply in employment situations (see s. 5(1)) and cannot be claimed with respect to services, goods and facilities. Further, “record of offences” is specifically defined in s. 10(1) of the Code as a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment.

7The applicant did not allege discrimination in employment. He also did not allege that he has a “conviction” within the meaning of the s. 10(1) definition of “record of offences”. The applicant did not identify any other grounds of discrimination or basis upon which he alleges the Code was violated.

8I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.