Grant v. Bombardier, 2009 HRTO 603

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Malcolm Grant

Applicant

-and-

Bombardier Inc.

Respondent

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: May 8, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 603

Indexed as: Grant v. Bombardier

BACKGROUND

1The applicant filed an Application on December 5, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), arising out of his former employment with the respondent. The applicant checked off “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as the alleged ground for his Application. Specifically, the applicant alleges that he made several complaints about workplace harassment during the course of his employment which resulted in his allegedly being “blacklisted” and not rehired after a lay off.

2The respondent filed a partial Response on January 19, 2009, in which it raised jurisdictional objections to the Application and requested early dismissal.

3The applicant filed a Request for Order on February 2, 2009, requesting an order that the respondent be required to provide a full Response to the Application; alternatively, that the respondent not be permitted to raise any issue other than jurisdiction; and that the applicant be given additional time to file a Reply.

4The respondent filed a Response to the Request for Order on February 18, 2009 arguing that it is not appropriate, necessary or even possible at this time for it to respond to the allegations in the Application, and claiming that the respondent would be seriously prejudiced if ordered to provide a full Response prior to a determination of the issue of jurisdiction.

5In a previous Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 267, the Tribunal ordered that a full Response be filed within 20 days and permitted the applicant to file a Reply within 14 days of receipt of the Response.

6The Response was filed within the timeline ordered. The applicant then filed a Request for Order requesting an extension of time to file his Reply. He has subsequently filed a Reply. The respondent has filed materials taking exception to the delay in making the extension request and filing the Reply as well as the contents of the Reply. Despite the delays in requesting an extension and in filing, the applicant’s request for Reply is accepted as filed.

RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR EARLY DISMISSAL

7In its earlier Interim Decision, the Tribunal indicated that it would address the issue of the respondent’s request for early dismissal once the Reply had been received. It will do so now, in writing.

8Section 8 of the Code, which prohibits reprisals or threat of reprisals, states:

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.

9The applicant has not alleged, in either his Application or his Reply that the respondent’s alleged actions were in response to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code, or refusing to infringe the right of another person.

10The applicant has identified no other ground of discrimination or basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated. He has provided no specific information about the Code grounds that were the subject of his workplace harassment complaints.

11The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment relationships, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code. The Tribunal has considered this question in its recent decision in Matthews v. Stanley, 2009 HRTO 372.

12The respondent has outlined its position with respect to the early dismissal request in both the partial and full Responses filed with the Tribunal.

13The applicant has made some submissions addressing the request in the Reply filed recently. If there are additional submissions that the applicant wishes to make with respect to the issue of early dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, he must deliver them to the respondent and file them with the Tribunal within 14 days from the receipt of this Interim Decision.

14The respondent is invited to make any final submissions on this issue within 14 days of receipt of the applicant’s submissions.

15I am not seized of this matter.