Dawson v. Woods Park Care Centre, 2009 HRTO 914

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ann Dawson

Applicant

-and-

Woods Park Care Centre and Carol Burdon

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: June 25, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 914

Indexed as: Dawson v. Woods Park Care Centre

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on May 19, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment. On June 3, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application fails to allege a ground or area of discrimination. The applicant was given 30 days to file written submissions explaining why she believes the Application is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2On June 15, 2009, the applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss. She did not indicate that her complaint falls under any of the listed grounds of protection from discrimination in the Code. Instead, she handwrote a new category, “Employment – Threatened to inflict harm”, and placed a checkmark next to this “ground”. She additionally alleged a “poisoned work environment”, but did not link the allegation to any existing ground of discrimination. In her written submissions, the applicant asks for assistance in dealing with threats, bullying and marginalization in the workplace, which she alleges have had a dramatic impact on her health and well-being.

3While workplace conflict can deeply impact those affected, the Tribunal does not have a general jurisdiction to evaluate employment relationships or resolve all situations of strife in the workplace. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to hearing Applications that allege violations of the Code. In employment, s.5(1) 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.

4Pursuant to 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.

5While it is clear from the materials submitted that the applicant was having difficulties with her working environment, she has not provided any information concerning discrimination on the basis of one or more of the grounds protected by the Code.

6The Tribunal finds that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.