Suzanne Intihar v. Makai Salon, 2009 HRTO 2225

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Suzanne Intihar Applicant

-and-

Makai Salon Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: December 18, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2225 Indexed as: Intihar v. Makai Salon

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 May 4, 2009. The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her in respect to her employment on the grounds of “record of offences”.

2On September 11, 2009 the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to the applicant on the basis that while her Application alleges “record of offences” as the ground of discrimination it does not allege that the respondent’s behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of record of offences defined in 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for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect to any provincial enactment (section 10(e)).

3The Tribunal asked the applicant to provide written submissions as to why she believed that her Application was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and should be decided by the Tribunal. The applicant has provided no submissions to date.

4The applicant provides a very brief narrative in her Application as to the incident of alleged discrimination. According to the applicant she was fired from her employment over the telephone on a day she was off sick. The applicant goes on to state that she believed that she was entitled to a written notice and two weeks pay, not one weeks pay as was apparently being offered. The applicant makes no mention in this narrative of any record of offences within the meaning of the Code.

5The applicant has not alleged any facts that would indicate possible discrimination on the basis of a record of offences. The applicant has not provided any written submissions to clarify her Application to suggest any possible violation of the Code.

6The 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. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as being outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, pursuant to rule 13.1 of the Tribunal's Rules