Labelle v. Sudbury Jail, 2010 HRTO 1325

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Claude Labelle

Applicant

-and-

Sudbury Jail, Enzo Pedron, and Chris Lacroix

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: June 10, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1325

Indexed as: Labelle v. Sudbury Jail

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 25, 2010. The applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of “association with a person identified by a ground listed above” and “reprisal or threat of reprisal”. He alleges that he was falsely accused by the respondent, his employer, of serious misconduct, specifically placing shotgun shells under a vehicle at work. He alleges that he and his wife, who also works at the same workplace, are being harassed and subjected to reprisal.

2On May 5, 2010, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) stating that it appeared the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it does not allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Code or reprisal as defined in the Code. The Tribunal requested that the applicant provide submissions setting out why the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and should be decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed that the submissions be filed by June 4, 2010. The applicant has not filed any submissions and the time for doing so has passed.

3The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the areas of accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment on the basis of grounds listed in the Code. In employment, those grounds are race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status and disability.

4In his Application and attached documents, the applicant provides a narrative of the allegations against him, which he claims are false, the investigation that was conducted, which he submits was flawed, and the meetings that he attended with management to discuss the allegations. He does not provide any allegations or details in relation to “association with a person identified by a ground listed above”.

5Section 8 of the Code provides 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.

6The Tribunal’s power to hear and determine human rights applications is based upon 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 evaluate claims of unfairness unless affected by a ground in the Code.

7On its face, the Application does not allege any facts within the scope of section 8 as against the respondent. The applicant does not allege that he attempted to claim or enforce his rights under the Code, that he instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or that he refused to infringe the right of another person under the Code. Further, he does not appear to make any allegations against the respondent on the basis of “association with a person identified by a ground listed above”. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Application and it is dismissed.