HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Charles Nahrgang
Applicant
-and-
Unique Personnel Canada Inc., General Electric Canada and Glen Aldridge
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Nahrgang v. Unique Personnel Canada
1The Application made under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of “record of offences.” This Decision addresses whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s power to decide.
2In an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 304, the Tribunal sought submissions from the applicant on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear this Application. The Interim Decision specifies that submissions were to be received by the Tribunal by March 27, 2009. To date no submissions have been received, nor has the Applicant requested an extension of time to make his submissions.
3The applicant was an employee of Unique Personnel Canada Inc. (“Unique Personnel”), assigned to do “shunt driver” work at General Electric Canada (“G.E.”). While working at G.E., he allegedly ran over a family of geese with his truck. Unique Personnel sent him a letter suspending him for two weeks as of June 29, 2007, and sent a subsequent letter saying that he was unable to continue with his assignment at G.E. due to his “actions.”
4The apparent foundation for the applicant’s assertion that he had been discriminated against on the basis of record of offences is that he was charged under the Criminal Code for “’willfully’ causing unnecessary suffering to a Gosling by purposely running a motor vehicle over it” and subsequently found not guilty of that offence on June 11, 2008.
5The term “record 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(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked; or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.
6In a recent decision, de Pelham v. Mytrak Health Systems, 2009 HRTO 172, the Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the ground “record of offences” applies to someone who has merely been charged with a criminal offence (paras. 6 and 9):
Mr. de Pelham argues that notwithstanding the definition provided in the Code, I should give “record of offences” a broader meaning, to include situations in which an individual has been charged with a criminal offence. …
Although I appreciate the applicant’s arguments in this case, his position cannot succeed. The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and provides that “record of offences” covers only persons convicted of an offence. It is true that the Code is an important public policy statute and must be given a large, liberal and purposive interpretation, but this does not mean that the Tribunal can depart from the express provisions of the legislation.
7The applicant does not allege in his Application that he was discriminated against by either respondent because he had been convicted of an offence for which he had been pardoned, or an offence under any provincial enactment. Instead, what he alleges is that the respondents improperly took action vis-à-vis his employment a year prior to his criminal trial. The definition of “record of offences” does not apply to the facts of this Application.
8The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment relationships or dismissals, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.
9The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of April, 2009.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair