Jakob v. ForestCare Corporation, 2009 HRTO 379

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Coloman Jakob Applicant

-and-

ForestCare Corporation and Judy Wood Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: April 2, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 379 Indexed as: Jakob v. Forest Care

1The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in terms of treatment he received while employed and his termination from employment. The applicant checked off “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as the alleged ground of discrimination in his Application.

2The applicant’s narrative, however, does not clearly identify how the respondents subjected him to reprisal or threat of reprisal. On Form 1-A, which asks specific questions for employment discrimination applications, the applicant was asked why he felt he was reprised against, to which the applicant responded, “I was reprised against because I tryed [sic] to explain my rights, duties under company policy and Human Rights Code”. There are no other facts in the Application which explain the basis for the applicant’s belief that he was subjected to reprisal or threat of reprisal.

3Section 8 of the Code states:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal.

4The applicant does not allege in the Application that the respondents’ behaviour was in response to any of the following:

• Claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
• Instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or
• Refusing to infringe the right of another person.

5Moreover, the applicant has identified no other ground of discrimination or basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated. The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment relationships or dismissals, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code.

6The Tribunal requests written submissions from the applicant to address the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the Application. The applicant should explain how his Application raises matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The respondent is not required to file any submissions on this point unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. The applicant’s submissions should be delivered to the respondent and filed with the Tribunal by April 15, 2009.

7Following receipt of the submissions, or if the applicant does not provide submissions by the date set, 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.

8The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website at www.hrto.ca or from the Registrar’s office. Pages 2-3 of the Guide set out sources of assistance that may be available to him.

9I am not seized of this matter.