Matthew Ford v. Canadian Union of Public Employees and Patrick "Sid" Ryan, 2009 HRTO 412

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Matthew Ford Applicant

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees and Patrick "Sid" Ryan Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: April 8, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 412 Indexed as: Ford v. Ryan

1This is an Application filed on January 13, 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 discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed and association with a person identified by those grounds. The respondents are a union and its Ontario President.

2The Application asserts that statements made by the respondent Patrick "Sid" Ryan in a January 5, 2009 press release, and other subsequent public statements, are discriminatory. In the press release, attached to the Application, Sid Ryan is quoted describing a resolution to be brought to the union's annual conference supporting a ban on Israeli academics at Ontario universities.

3On February 27, 2009, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. Among other things, the letter from the Tribunal stated:

The Tribunal has reviewed your Application. It appears that your Application is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because it does not provide any basis for finding the statements made by the Respondent, Sid Ryan, would amount to discrimination or harassment against you in your employment or contractual relationships with Ontario universities.

4The Tribunal's letter invited the applicant to make written submissions explaining why he believes the Application is in the Tribunal's jurisdiction. No submissions have been received.

5Originally, the Application alleged discrimination in the areas of employment and contracts. Just prior to the Tribunal's letter, the applicant's representative confirmed in writing that the assertion of discrimination in the area of contracts is withdrawn.

DECISION

6The Application is based on the assertion that the respondents are "attempting to instigate racist employment practices". There is the suggestion that the respondents wield influence, and that by calling on Ontario universities to adopt a certain position, they may affect the employment prospects of Jewish Canadian academics or visiting Israeli academics.

7Section 5 of the Code, prohibiting discrimination and harassment in employment, states:

(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without 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.

(2) Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

8On my review of the Application, I find that it does not raise matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social relationships such as housing, employment and the provision of services. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into statements alleged to be offensive or discriminatory and which do not affect the right to equal treatment in employment under the Code.

9Although the applicant has identified "employment" as the area in which he experienced discrimination or harassment, there is nothing to indicate in what way the respondents have discriminated against him in his employment. There is nothing identifying any employment relationship between the applicant and any individual or organization, out of which the allegations arise.

10The Application also states that "he cannot sit back and let a minority group in Canada be attacked." It states that Sid Ryan's position "singles out Israeli/Jewish citizens of Canada/Ontario for harassment and intimidation, case closed." It appears from these statements that the applicant may be bringing the Application on behalf of others whom he believes are experiencing discrimination or harassment. But even if the applicant is filing this Application on behalf of another person, he fails to identify any individual whose employment relationship has been affected by discrimination or harassment.

11The Tribunal therefore finds that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.