Michael Gravino v. P.R. Maintenance Inc., 2009 HRTO 516

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Gravino Applicant

-and-

P.R. Maintenance Inc. Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: April 28, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 516 Indexed as: Gravino v. P.R. Maintenance

1This is an Application filed on January 5, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended ("the Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to request submissions on whether or not the Application is in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2The applicant filed an Application against the respondent claiming discrimination in employment on the ground of "record of offences". In the Application, the applicant alleges that he was not approved for employment with the respondent "due to criminal history". The applicant specifically references a charge and indicates that he has not received a pardon.

3In the Response, the respondent states that there has been no discrimination. The respondent states that the Code provides a specific definition of "record of offences" and requires that for an individual to claim protection under that ground, they must have been convicted of a criminal offence and received a pardon. Although not framed as such by the respondent, it is apparent that the respondent is suggesting that the applicant does not meet this definition and therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this Application.

4The applicant filed a Reply to the Response, in which it is not clear whether or not he has been convicted of an offence. He also does not directly address how his circumstances fit within the definition of "record of offences" in the Code.

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(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or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 found that the protection against discrimination on the basis of a "record of offences" covers only persons convicted of an offence, and not those merely charged.

6The Tribunal requests written submissions from the applicant on the issue of its jurisdiction to hear this Application. In these submissions, the applicant should address the following:

(a) The application of the definition of "record of offences" to the applicant's circumstances and in particular, whether he has been convicted of an offence and whether he has been granted a pardon; and

(b) If the applicant was only charged with an offence, his position on the definition of "record of offences" in the Code, and the Tribunal's interpretation of that definition in de Pelham v. Mytrak Health Systems;

7The applicant's submissions should be delivered to the respondents and filed with the Tribunal by May 12, 2009. Following receipt of the submissions, or if submissions are not provided 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 set out sources of assistance that may be available to him.

9I am not seized of this matter.