Frettsome v. Logisite Logistics Management, 2010 HRTO 1819

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Trevor Frettsome

Applicant

-and-

Logisite Logistics Management Inc., Mabe Canada Inc., Ken Falkiner, Glen Cleasby and Brian Jones

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: September 9, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1819

Indexed as: Frettsome v. Logisite Logistics Management

1This is an Application filed on June 24, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in respect of employment on the basis of disability. The Application named four organizations and three people as respondents. The four organizations named were Logisite Logistics Management Inc., Mabe Canada Inc., J&D Benefits Inc. and Industrial Alliance. The first of those was the applicant’s former employer. The three personal respondents named were Ken Falkiner, Glen Cleasby and Brian Jones.

2On August 12, 2010, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against certain Respondents, specifically Brian Jones, Mabe Canada Inc., J&D Benefits Inc. and Industrial Alliance as an initial review of the Application and the included narrative had failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination or draw any connection between the actions of those respondents and any prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.

3The applicant has made written submissions in response to the Notice.

4Of the four organizations named as respondents, the applicant alleges that Logisite Logistics Management Inc. and Mabe Canada Inc. were involved in making employment related decisions about him.

5Ken Falkiner and Glen Cleasby appear to be employed by Logisite Logistics Management Inc. and Brian Jones appears to be employed by Mabe Canada Inc. and the applicant alleges they were all involved in the decision to terminate his employment.

6However, the materials indicate that J&D Benefits Inc. and Industrial Alliance were providing benefits to the applicant and there is no suggestion that these organizations were in an employment relationship with the applicant or that they played any role in the termination of the applicant’s employment, the acts identified by the applicant as discriminatory.

7It is plain and obvious, in my view, that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of J&D Benefits Inc. and Industrial Alliance and, accordingly, the Application is dismissed against them and the style of cause amended to reflect the dismissal.

8On my review of the material before me, I am not convinced that it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the respondents, Logisite Logistics Management Inc., Mabe Canada Inc., Ken Falkiner, Glen Cleasby and Brian Jones.

9Pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal will send the Application to those respondents and include this Interim Decision, the applicant’s submission and all correspondence between the Tribunal and the applicant on the jurisdiction issue.

10This decision to continue to deal with the Application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the Application, nor an indication that the personal respondents should continue to be named as parties.

11I am not seized.