Loretta Russell v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited, 2010 HRTO 1786

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Loretta Russell Applicant

• and -

McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: August 31, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1786 Indexed as: Russell v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada

1The applicant filed an Application on March 17, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal in employment. The respondent is the applicant’s employer.

2The applicant’s narrative describes her on-going concerns at work regarding her store manager’s rudeness, job transfers, performance reviews and demotion. The applicant submits that she seeks the Tribunal’s help “to get fair treatment because of [her] years of service at the company”.

3The respondent filed a Response on June 29, 2010, asking the Tribunal to dismiss the Application because the applicant has not raised any allegation of a violation of the Code. The respondent submits that the Application relates to the applicant’s discontent about being placed on a performance improvement plan.

4On July 30, 2010, the respondent reiterated this position in a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking early dismissal of the Application because the Application fails to allege discrimination on the basis of any protected Code ground.

5The applicant did not file a Reply or a response to the respondent’s Request and the time for filing these materials has elapsed.

DECISION

6The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment) on the basis of specific grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender and race, etc.). Section 8 of the Code prohibits reprisals 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.

7Clearly the applicant feels that she has been treated unfairly, but she does not allege that the mistreatment occurred because of an attempt on her part “to claim and enforce…her rights under this Act”. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code. The applicant has not identified any ground of discrimination or basis upon which she alleges that the Code was violated.

8I am satisfied that the Application does not to raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The applicant has not explained how the respondent’s conduct related to the applicant claiming or enforcing her rights under the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment relationships, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application and this Application is dismissed.