Parathan Paramanathan v. Best Buy Canada Ltd., Asif Zia, Michael Fernandes and Ashishkumar Patel, 2009 HRTO 957

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Parathan Paramanathan

Applicant

• and-

Best Buy Canada Ltd., Asif Zia, Michael Fernandes and Ashishkumar Patel

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July 3, 2009

Indexed as: Paramanthan v. Best Buy Canada

1This is an Application filed on June 2, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) alleging reprisal in employment. The applicant checked off “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as the only ground of discrimination alleged in his Application.

2The respondents are the applicant’s former employer, supervisor and team leads. The applicant appears to suggest that he experienced reprisal for reporting concerns to senior management regarding alleged unfair treatment.

3The applicant’s narrative, however, does not clearly identify how the respondents subjected him to “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as provided by section 8 of the Code, which 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.”

4On June 9, 2009, the Tribunal issued a letter informing the applicant of the Tribunal’s intent to dismiss the Application because the Application did not appear to raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The Tribunal invited the applicant to file submissions explaining how the respondents’ conduct related to the applicant claiming or enforcing his rights under the Code. The applicant filed submissions on June 17, 2009.

5The 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.). The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate unfairness in employment relationships or dismissals, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code.

6While the applicant has identified no ground of discrimination other than reprisal, one of his answers to a question in Form 1-A (the specific form with respect to employment discrimination applications) indicates that the ground of “place of origin” may also be a basis upon which the applicant alleges that his rights under the Code were violated. Specifically, in response to the question of whether or not his concerns related to being denied a workplace opportunity, the applicant states that the respondents provided training to an employee who was junior to the applicant and is of the same “place of origin” as the supervisor. Further, in his Application narrative and accompanying materials the applicant expresses concerns regarding inappropriate questioning by the respondents of his absences due to sickness notwithstanding the fact that he provided doctor’s notes.

7Given the applicant’s concerns with respect to differential treatment on the basis of “place of origin” and inappropriate questioning of illness-related absences, the Application may raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Registrar will serve the Application and this Interim Decision on the respondents.

8I am not seized of this matter.