Moss v. Edward D. Jones, 2010 HRTO 1039

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leslie Moss

Applicant

-and-

Edward D. Jones & Co.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: May 10, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1039

Indexed as: Moss v. Edward D. Jones

1In this Application, filed pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), the applicant alleges that the respondent unfairly withheld monies owing to him. The applicant alleges discrimination in the context of employment and contracts but does not identify a ground of discrimination (for example, race, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, and family status) prohibited by the Code.

2The respondent has filed an incomplete Response. It has, however, filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("Request") seeking to enforce a settlement in the amount of $287, which it says was orally agreed to by the parties.

Does the Tribunal have the jurisdiction (power to decide) the Application?

3In an earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 666, the Tribunal identified a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction (power to decide) the Application. The Tribunal required additional submissions from the applicant regarding the connection, if any, between the allegations in the Application and the prohibited grounds identified in the Code.

4The applicant has filed submissions in response to the Interim Decision. He alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of gender because the respondent focussed more efforts on recruiting and supporting women in the role. He alleges he was discriminated against on the basis of family status because he is a single parent and the respondent showed bias towards employees who were married. He alleges that he was penalized for taking vacation to visit his children outside the country and that, at about the time of the termination of the applicant's employment, his son was not permitted to attend a social event organized by the respondent.

5In my view, read together, the Application and the submissions filed in response to the Interim Decision contain allegations which relate to the Code and which are within the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide.

6In making this determination, I make no finding as to whether or not the allegations are made out. I have simply concluded that at least some of the allegations relate to grounds listed in the Code and that, as a result, the matter is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide.

NEXT STEPS

7Within ten days of this Interim Decision, the respondent is required to file a complete Response.

8As both parties have agreed to participate in mediation, the Registrar will schedule a mediation date.

9The respondent's Request to enforce an oral agreement may be addressed by the Tribunal if the matter does not resolve at the mediation.

10I am not seized of this matter.