Janzen v. White Digital Media, 2009 HRTO 958

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nicholaus Janzen

Applicant

• and-

White Digital Media and Ben Weaver

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July ,3 2009

Indexed as: Janzen v. White Digital Media

Decision

1The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), alleging he experienced reprisal in employment. The applicant checked off “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as the only ground of discrimination in his Application.

2The respondents are the applicant’s former employer and supervisor. The Application describes many allegations of mistreatment, including instances of physical and verbal aggression. Although he did not provide any details, the applicant appears to suggest that he experienced reprisal for refusing to do things to other co-workers that were against their human rights.

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.”

4On May 14, 2009, the Tribunal issued Notice of intent to dismiss the Application because the Application did not identify a ground of discrimination or basis upon which the applicant alleges the Code was violated. The Tribunal invited the applicant to file submissions on or before June 15, 2009 explaining how the respondents’ conduct 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.

5No submissions were received from the applicant in response to the Tribunal’s May 14, 2009 letter. The applicant clearly feels that he has been treated unfairly, but he does not explain how the alleged mistreatment occurred in relation to a Code ground, or because of an attempt on his part to claim and enforce his Code rights, or his refusal to infringe the Code rights of others. 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 he alleges that the Code was violated.

6Given that the Application lacks sufficient information regarding the ground or the basis of the alleged Code violation, the Tribunal cannot proceed with this Application and the Application is dismissed.