HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gabriela Mirea
Applicant
-and-
Canadian National Exhibition, Jim McMillen and Pat Trajanovski
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition
1This is an Application filed on August 11, 2008 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 the threat of reprisal in the area of employment.
2The respondents have filed a Response and a Request for an Order pursuant to Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. They have asked that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the matters raised by the Application. Specifically, the respondents argue that the Application does not raise a violation of the Code.
3Counsel for the respondents argues that section 8 of the Code requires a link between an alleged reprisal and an attempt to enforce rights under the Code. In the present case, counsel argues the applicant has not pointed to or established any such connection between the alleged reprisal and any Code related grounds. They have requested that their Request for an Order be dealt with in writing.
4The applicant has filed an Application form with numerous attachments and a Reply to the Response and Request for an Order. The applicant agrees to have the Request for an Order dealt with in writing.
5From the materials filed by the applicant, it appears that she alleges that she has suffered reprisal in the respondents’ decision not to rehire her because she complained about the conduct of her supervisor, raised health and safety concerns and disagreed with the performance evaluation completed by her supervisor.
6In the Reply, and in responding to the respondent’s Request for Order, the applicant reiterates her position that the basis of her Application is reprisal connected to her complaints about health and safety and her supervisor’s actions. Although she has included a large amount of correspondence, including a number of e-mails and letters, as attachments to her Application, she does not clearly explain how the alleged reprisal is linked to attempts on her part to claim or enforce rights under the Code.
7In both the Application and Reply documents, the applicant makes reference to an absence from work for two days as a result of illness. However, she does not allege that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of disability or perceived disability. The respondent’s materials indicate that the applicant’s failure to report for work on those two days was one of the factors that resulted in the decision not to rehire the applicant the following year as they allege that she failed to notify her supervisor and did not respond to messages from the employer enquiring about her absence.
8The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment relationships or dismissals, but hears applications that allege violations of the Code.
9In employment, s. 5(1) of the Code prohibits discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
10Under s. 8, every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under the Code to institute and participate in proceedings under the Code and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under the Code, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.
11While it is clear from the materials submitted that the applicant was having difficulties with her working environment, her supervisor’s actions and some interactions with co-workers, she has not provided any information concerning discrimination on the basis of prohibited grounds. Nor has she provided any information linking the alleged reprisal to attempts on her part to enforce her rights under the Code.
12The Tribunal finds that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 13^th^ day of January, 2009.
“Signed by”__________________
Jay Sengupta
Vice-Chair