minicounsel

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Melody Kovacs

Applicant

-and-

Pitney Bowes Inc., Felicia Grasso and John Law

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: May 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1067

Indexed as: Kovacs v. Pitney Bowes

[1] This Interim Decision deals with an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application was filed on November 17, 2009 and alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. In the Response, the respondents argue that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application because the events in question occurred in Alberta and because the Application was not filed in a timely way.

[3] The applicant alleges that she spoke to John Law, a personal respondent in the Application, who was then a Human Resources Manager with the corporate respondent's office in Mississauga, Ontario, and he encouraged her to return to Ontario because suitable work was available in Ontario. The respondents do not agree that the applicant was encouraged to return to Ontario and allege that she did so purely for personal reasons. The respondents submit that the applicant was told that she could not transfer back to Ontario, but that she was free to apply for any available jobs.

[4] The applicant returned to Ontario in approximately September 2008 and applied for various jobs through the corporate respondent's human resources department in Ontario. She had an interview with Felicia Grasso, the other personal respondent, who was a recruiter for the corporate respondent. She was not offered any job and states that she has not heard from the respondents since December 2008. She alleges that she was not offered employment because of her disability. She filed the Application on November 17, 2009.

[5] The respondents agree that the applicant was not offered a job but submit that her disability was not a factor.

[6] The respondents argue that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction with respect to the events that occurred in Alberta.

[7] In her Reply, the applicant clarifies that the "claim of discrimination happened in Pitney Bowes Ajax [Ontario] on December 18, 2008, after being denied a job I clearly was qualified for because of my injury."

[8] The Application thus raises allegations that clearly fall under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The events that occurred in Alberta appear to be relevant at least in terms of the background to the events in Ontario.

[9] Section 34(1) the Code provides:

34.(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series

[10] The Application describes a series of events from September to December 2008. The Application was filed in November 2009. The Application was accordingly filed within one year after the last incident in the series of events alleged in the Application.

[11] I am satisfied the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the allegations relating to the applicant's involvement with the respondents in Ontario in the period from September to December 2008. This matter will proceed to mediation if both parties have agreed. If there is no agreement to mediate the Registrar will schedule the Application for hearing.

Dated at Toronto, this 12^th^ day of May, 2010.

"Signed by"

Brian Cook

Vice-chair

Melody Kovacs v. Pitney Bowes Inc., 2010 HRTO 1067

Case Summary

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[5] The respondents agree that the applicant was not offered a job but submit that her disability was not a factor.

[6] The respondents argue that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction with respect to the events that occurred in Alberta.

[7] In her Reply, the applicant clarifies that the "claim of discrimination happened in Pitney Bowes Ajax [Ontario] on December 18, 2008, after being denied a job I clearly was qualified for because of my injury."

[8] The Application thus raises allegations that clearly fall under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The events that occurred in Alberta appear to be relevant at least in terms of the background to the events in Ontario.

[9] Section 34(1) the Code provides:

[10] The Application describes a series of events from September to December 2008. The Application was filed in November 2009. The Application was accordingly filed within one year after the last incident in the series of events alleged in the Application.

Melody Kovacs v. Pitney Bowes Inc., 2010 HRTO 1067

Case Summary

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[5] The respondents agree that the applicant was not offered a job but submit that her disability was not a factor.

[6] The respondents argue that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction with respect to the events that occurred in Alberta.

[7] In her Reply, the applicant clarifies that the "claim of discrimination happened in Pitney Bowes Ajax [Ontario] on December 18, 2008, after being denied a job I clearly was qualified for because of my injury."

[8] The Application thus raises allegations that clearly fall under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The events that occurred in Alberta appear to be relevant at least in terms of the background to the events in Ontario.

[9] Section 34(1) the Code provides:

[10] The Application describes a series of events from September to December 2008. The Application was filed in November 2009. The Application was accordingly filed within one year after the last incident in the series of events alleged in the Application.