Morrissey v. Investors Group Financial Services, 2010 HRTO 1673

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Elaine Morrissey Applicant

-and-

Investors Group Financial Services Inc., Adecco Employment Services Limited and Kathleen Duguay Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: August 12, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1673 Indexed as: Morrissey v. Investors Group Financial Services

1The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of record of disability by the three named respondents. One of the named respondents, Kathleen Duguay, requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with it. This Decision addresses that request.

2In a previous Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 624, I directed the applicant to provide further particulars with respect to her allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal. She was also directed to provide submissions with respect to why these allegations are within the power of the Tribunal to decide.

3The applicant provided submissions in response to this request, which largely consist of excerpts from an unidentified policy document on human rights, a summary of the "harassing behaviour" she alleges she experienced and excerpts from notes written by a co-worker. Except to say that the ground of disability is inapplicable (i.e., that the applicant does not have a disability), the submissions are not responsive to the direction in the Interim Decision.

4At no point in the applicant's lengthy series of allegations in her Application and submissions concerning Kathleen Duguay, the individually named respondent, does she refer to any differential treatment on the basis of a ground listed under the Code. This behaviour is collectively referred to as "harassment" but at no point is there any attempt to link this behaviour to an enumerated ground.

5The Tribunal does not adjudicate general claims of unfairness or harassment. There must be a nexus between the allegation of unfairness and/or harassment and a ground under the Code. In the absence of such a nexus, no violation of the Code can be found.

6With respect to the allegation of reprisal, section 8 of the Code states:

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.

7To successfully make out a claim of reprisal, the applicant must demonstrate that she experienced reprisal for:

• claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
• instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or
• refusing to infringe the right of another person.

8Given that the applicant has failed to establish that she was claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, she is unable to rely on the first prong of this test. Moreover, there is nothing in the body of her Application to suggest that she had instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or that she was refusing to infringe the rights of another person.

9Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application. The Application is dismissed.