Frank Cira v. Barbara Minshall Racing Stable, 2009 HRTO 98

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Frank Cira

Applicant

-and-

Barbara Minshall Racing Stable, Barbara Minshall and Lorenzo Trabucco

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price Date: January 28, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 98 Indexed as: Cira v. Barbara Minshall Racing Stable

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondents discriminated against and/or harassed him in respect of employment on the basis of place of origin and record of offences. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal dismisses the Application as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the matters raised in the Application.

2In its earlier Interim Decision, 2008 HRTO 243, the Tribunal identified a threshold jurisdictional issue and directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining whether he had a “record of offences” within the meaning of the Code and how the respondents’ actions were alleged to constitute discrimination or harassment on the basis of place of origin or record of offences with respect to employment. The Interim Decision provided the applicant with information on how to access legal services and referred him to the Applicant’s Guide and advised that the Tribunal would dismiss the Application if the applicant did not provide written submissions as directed or if his submissions did not, on their face, raise matters that were within the Tribunal’s power to decide.

3It has now been more than 10 days since the date the applicant’s written submissions were due and the Tribunal has not received any submissions from the applicant in response to the Interim Decision.

4The Application, which is handwritten, is largely illegible. The main allegation appears to be that one of the personal respondents called the applicant a derogatory name on one occasion. However, there are no facts alleged which connect those actions to the applicant’s place of origin or record of offences. Indeed, the applicant states that the respondents did not know that he had a “record of offences” within the meaning of the Code (if indeed he does have a “record of offences” within the meaning of the Code, which cannot be ascertained from the Application) and he indicated that “place of origin” was “the place of working in Barn #26 at Woodbine Racetrack”, which is where the name-calling allegedly occurred. The applicant does not provide any information about his place of origin or about how the respondent’s actions were based on it.

5The Tribunal’s power to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code, which, among other things, prohibits discrimination and harassment with respect to employment on the basis of the grounds set out in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness which are not covered by the Code. Although the applicant asserts that one of the personal respondents called him a name, there are no facts alleged which connect those or any other of the respondents’ actions to a prohibited ground under the Code.

6I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, I dismiss the Application.