HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Zan

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Blood Services and Anna Kelly

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: July 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 987

Indexed as: Zan v. Canadian Blood Services

1This is an Application filed on April 27, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). For the reasons below, the Tribunal determines that the Application does not raise issues covered by the Code.

2In her Application, the applicant alleges discrimination in membership in a vocational association and checks off “association with a person identified by a ground listed above” (which she amends by adding “vocational association”) as the alleged ground of discrimination. In paragraph 8 of the Application when explaining the facts underlying her Application, the applicant states among other things that she has been discriminated against due to her “political beliefs (vocational association)”. She refers to being humiliated and embarrassed by Anna Kelly and being singled out as the “only union rep” in front of her peers. In the attached Form 1-E, the applicant further explains that she is the local President for OPSEU Local 160 and feels that she was singled out and attacked because she was exercising her rights under a collective agreement and the ESA which I assume is a reference to the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

3On May 22, 2009, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, inviting her to make submissions on why the Application raises matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Among other things, the Tribunal’s Notice stated:

Your Application does not make it clear that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with your difficulties. The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment relationships, but hears only Applications that allege violations of the Human Rights Code.

Among the areas covered by the Code is membership in a vocational association, which is defined as a trade union, among other things. It does not appear that you are alleging that your trade union has denied you equal treatment.

You have identified grounds of discrimination that do not appear in the Code. The grounds of discrimination listed in the Code in respect of membership in a trade union are race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, martial status, family status and disability.

Please explain how your Application raises matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. You may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website or from the Registrar’s office. Pages 2-3 of the Guide set out sources of assistance that may be available to you.

4On June 15, 2009, the Tribunal received further submissions from the applicant. The applicant confirms that the trade union is not denying her equal treatment but that Anna Kelly and her employer are denying her equal treatment. She states that Anna Kelly has made her feel that she cannot express rights under Ontario legislation and her own collective agreement. Further, she states that she took her complaint to her employer but their decision on her complaint was not satisfactory.

5Whether the Application is treated as an application alleging discrimination in vocational association (as identified by the applicant in her Application) or discrimination in employment as suggested in the applicant’s recent submissions, I do not find that the Application raises matters that are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social relationships such as employment and vocational associations on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status and disability, and, in the case of employment, the additional ground of record of offences. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into general claims of unfair treatment such as statements alleged to be humiliating or embarrassing or conduct alleged to affect speech or union activity unless it affects the right to equal treatment in vocational associations or employment on the specified grounds protected under the Code.

7Although the applicant has identified “vocational association” as the area in which she experienced discrimination, there is nothing to indicate how the discrimination that she is complaining about is connected to the grounds identified in the Code. Further, if the Application is construed to be in respect of the applicant’s employment, she has not identified how the respondents (assuming that Canadian Blood Services is her employer) have discriminated against her in a manner that is contrary to the Code. In this respect, I note that the applicant contends that she is being treated differently because of her membership in and association with her union, but this is not activity which is protected under the Code.

8Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application and the Application is dismissed.