HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ruth Packman-Wallace Applicant
-and-
Subway Store #14207 and Erin Nicholas Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: June 1, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 729 Indexed as: Packman-Wallace v. Subway Store #14207
1This is an Application filed on April 17, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), accompanied by a Request to Expedite Proceedings. On April 23, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, inviting her to make submissions on why the Application raises matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. For the reasons below, the Tribunal determines that the Application does not raise issues covered by the Code, and it is dismissed.
2In her Application, the applicant alleges discrimination in employment and checked off “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as the alleged ground of discrimination. She has not filed a Form 1-A, which asks specific questions for employment discrimination applications. In the Application, the applicant refers to a hostile work environment and verbal harassment by her manager. She states that she has been yelled at, berated and intimidated over issues in the workplace. She describes being accused of poor work performance, and being criticized and humiliated in front of staff and customers.
3The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into general claims of unfair treatment in employment. Its jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability. Section 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.
4The applicant does not allege that the respondents’ behaviour was in response to any of the following:
- 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.
5Moreover, the applicant has identified no other ground of discrimination or basis upon which she alleges that the Code was violated. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.
6This Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of June, 2009.
“Signed By”
___________________________________
Sherry Liang Vice-chair