Catherine Walker v. Arbor Memorial Services Inc., 2009 HRTO 543

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Catherine Walker

Applicant

-and-

Arbor Memorial Services Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 30, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 543

Indexed as: Walker v. Arbor Memorial Services

1In this Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the applicant alleges that the respondent engaged in reprisal against her in the area of employment. The respondent filed a Response dated April 23, 2009.

2The applicant alleges that she and her sister (who also worked for the respondent) were interviewed by the respondent as part of an investigation into allegations made by another employee about a member of management. The applicant alleges that following the investigation she was terminated as a reprisal to the investigation. She advises that her sister was also terminated on the same date and has also filed an Application with the Tribunal.

3The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) requesting that her Application be heard with her sister’s Application. This interim decision will be only addressing the applicant’s allegations that the respondent engaged in reprisal against her.

4Section 8 of the Code provides as follows:

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 for so doing.

5On its face, the Application does not allege any facts which would come within the scope of section 8. The applicant does not allege that she attempted to claim or enforce her rights under the Code, that she instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or that she refused to infringe the right of another person under the Code.

6The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based upon the Code, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of protected grounds listed in the Code. It does not have a general power to inquire into employment relationships and difficulties that may occur in those relationships.

7The applicant is therefore required to deliver submissions to the respondent and file them with the Tribunal setting out precisely the manner in which it is alleged that the respondent engaged in reprisal(s) against the applicant, contrary to section 8 of the Code. Such submissions must be delivered and filed by no later than May 11, 2009. The respondent may deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal any reply submissions by no later than May 19, 2009. After receipt of the submissions the Tribunal will review those submissions and issue another decision. If necessary, at that time the Tribunal will also address the applicant’s outstanding Request for Order During Proceedings about her Application and her sister’s Application proceeding together.

8I am not seized of this matter.