Tina Colamartino v. TransGlobe Property Management Services, 2009 HRTO 917

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tina Colamartino

Applicant

-and-

TransGlobe Property Management Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: June 26, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 917

Indexed as: Colamartino v. TransGlobe Property Management Services

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on March 3, 2009, alleging reprisal in employment.

2The respondent is the applicant’s former employer. The applicant appears to suggest that she was reprised against when she was laid off from her employment, despite earlier assurances that she would be kept on. The applicant alleges that she experienced reprisal for raising concerns regarding workload issues and because she became privy to privileged information about an executive officer.

3The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment) on the basis of specific grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender and race, etc.). Section 8 of the Code prohibits reprisals 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.

4Clearly the applicant feels that she has been treated unfairly, but she does not allege that she was dismissed because of an attempt on her part “to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act”. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code. The applicant has not identified any ground of discrimination or basis upon which she alleges that the Code was violated.

5Accordingly, the Tribunal requests that the applicant provide written submissions to address the issue of whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this Application. The applicant should explain how the concerns of reprisal set out in her Application raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The respondent is not required to file any submissions unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.

6The applicant’s submissions should be delivered to the respondent and filed with the Tribunal no later than 21 days from the date of this Interim Decision. Following receipt of the applicant’s submissions, or if the applicant does not provide submissions by the date set, the Tribunal may consider whether the Application should be dismissed under Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which permits the Tribunal to dismiss all or part of an application that is outside its jurisdiction.

7In its Response, the respondent requests that this Application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because the applicant signed a full and final release with respect to the termination of her employment. The respondent provided a copy of the signed release with its Response. The respondent did not provide submissions in support of its request for early dismissal, nor did it provide a full response to the allegations in the Application.

8At this stage of the process, the Tribunal does not find it necessary to consider the respondent’s request to dismiss. If the Tribunal determines that it has jurisdiction over the Application, the Registrar will schedule a teleconference to hear submissions on the issue of whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application as a result of the applicant having signed a full and final release.

9I am not seized of this matter.