John-Maurice Habel v. Gloria Chilsom, 2009 HRTO 2283

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John-Maurice Habel

Applicant

-and-

Gloria Chilsom

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: December 31, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2283

Indexed as: Habel v. Chilsom

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 August 11, 2009 which alleges that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to employment on the basis of record of offences. The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

2In his Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him when she disciplined him for alleged misconduct.

3On October 22, 2009, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, which informed the applicant that the Application appears to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it does not indicate how his circumstances fall within a ground or area of discrimination covered by the Code. Specifically, the Application does not allege that the respondent’s behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of record of offences as defined in the Code. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions within 30 days to explain why the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and further indicated that if he did not file written submissions, the Tribunal will make its decision based only on the material in the Application. To date, the Tribunal has not received any submissions from the applicant.

4Record of offences is defined in section 10(1) of the Code as follows:

“record of offences” means a conviction for,

(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or

(b) an offence in respect of any provincial enactment;

5The Application does not allege any facts which fall within the definition of record of offences. In particular, the applicant does not allege that the respondent disciplined him in his employment because he had a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon had been granted or an offence in respect of a provincial enactment.

6Accordingly, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application, and it is therefore dismissed.