Aara Babaria v. 3755479 Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 602

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Aara Babaria Applicant

-and-

3755479 Canada Inc. Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: May 8, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 602 Indexed as: Babaria v. 375549 Canada Inc.

1This is an Application filed on January 8, 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 reprisal or the threat of reprisal in the area of employment.

2The respondent has filed a Response in which it has asked that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the allegations relate to matters not covered by the Code. Specifically, the respondents argue that the Application does not raise a violation of the Code.

3Counsel for the respondent argues that section 8 of the Code requires a link between an alleged reprisal and an attempt to enforce rights under the Code. In the present case, counsel argues the applicant has not pointed to or established any such connection between the alleged reprisal and any Code related grounds.

4The Tribunal requested that the applicant address the respondent’s request to dismiss in the Reply. The applicant has not filed a Reply and the deadline to do so has now passed.

5From the materials filed, it appears that the applicant alleges having suffered a reprisal in the respondent’s decision to terminate a contract of employment because of complaints made about the conduct of co-workers and a supervisor at a job placement location. The complaints made by the applicant that allegedly led to the termination of employment concern co-workers allegedly misusing break time, playing music too loudly and disabling a computer mouse.

6Although the applicant describes the difficulties with the co-workers and the supervisor at the job placement site, there is no explanation of how the alleged reprisal is linked to attempts on the part of the applicant to claim or enforce rights under the Code.

7The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment relationships or dismissals, but hears applications that allege violations of the Code.

8In employment, s. 5(1) of the Code prohibits 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.

9Under s.8, every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under the Code to institute and participate in proceedings under the Code and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under the Code, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

10While it is clear from the materials submitted that the applicant was having difficulties in some interactions with co-workers and a supervisor, the applicant has not provided any information concerning discrimination on the basis of prohibited grounds. Nor has the applicant provided any information linking the alleged reprisal to attempts to enforce rights under the Code.

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