Mark Vitlin v. Canada Bread Company Ltd. (Central Bakery), 2009 HRTO 2286

Editor’s note: A corrigendum has been released on January 19th 2010. The corrections have been made to the text of the decision

January 18, 2010

Mark Vitlin 86 David Lewis Drive Concord, Ontario L4K 3J1 Regular Mail

Canada Bread Company Ltd. (Central Bakery) C/o Michael D. Failes Fax 416-408-4814

Canada Bread Company Limited (Central Bakery) C/o Kathleen Simpson Fax 416-622-9332

Tim Rocks C/o Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Local 264 6655 Kitimat Road Mississauga, Ontario L5N 6J4 Regular Mail

Mark Vitlin v. Canada Bread Company File No. 2009-02825-I

RE : Amended Notice for Decision Dated December 31, 2009

The Decision dated December 31, 2009 contains a typographical error.

The cover page cites the Decision as an Interim Decision. Please note, this is a final Decision.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mark Vitlin

Applicant

-and-

Canada Bread Company Ltd. (Central Bakery)

Respondent

final DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: December 31, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2286

Indexed as: Vitlin v. Canada Bread

1The applicant filed an Application on February 19, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges “reprisal or threat of reprisal” in employment. The respondent has filed a Response, and the applicant has not filed a Reply. The respondent has asked that the Application be dismissed, as the Application discloses no violation of the Code.

2On October 8, 2009 the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision: 2009 HRTO 1662). The applicant was required to deliver to the respondents, and file with the Tribunal no later than October 29, 2009, written submissions that would identify what personal characteristics listed in section 5 of the Code are at issue in his Application, and why he feels that he was the victim of reprisal as described in this decision. The decision stated that the Tribunal would review the applicant’s submissions, and might dismiss the Application or issue further directions to the parties.

3To date, the applicant has not communicated with the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is left with an Application which identifies no ground of discrimination or basis upon which the applicant alleges that the Code was violated.

4The Tribunal does not have a general power to deal with alleged unfairness, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application and it is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.