Darrell Pollock v. Wayco Multi-Lift, 2010 HRTO 1894

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darrell Pollock

Applicant

-and-

Wayco Multi-Lift

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: September 21, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1894 Indexed as: Pollock v. Wayco Multi-Lift

1This is an Application filed on May 13, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences and reprisal.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the Application (NOID).

3The Tribunal sent the applicant a NOID on July 5, 2010. The NOID indicates that it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the events described in the Application fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. Moreover, the applicant has referred to the ground of “record of offences” but has failed to describe how the respondent’s behaviour is related to discrimination on the basis of conviction for an offence in which a pardon has not been granted under the Criminal Records of Canada, and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect to any provincial enactment. Similarly, the applicant has referred to reprisal (or the threat of reprisal) as a ground of discrimination but has failed to explain how the respondent’s behaviour was related to taking action against the applicant for claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceeds under the Code ; or refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code.

4The NOID directs the applicant to provide written submissions within 30 days as to why his Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant has not provided any submissions as of the date of this Decision.

5The Application contains a narrative of events related to the applicant’s employment with the respondent. The Application lists 17 specific incidents during the period November 2008 to April 2010 which appear to be of concern to the applicant. None of these identified incidents involve alleged discriminatory action by the respondent. The applicant’s concerns appear primarily to be about the ethical behaviour of the respondent.

6There is no reference in the narrative of the Application to record of offences. The single reference to reprisal in the Application is in Form 1-A where the applicant suggests that he was reprised against for raising a health and safety issue in the workplace.

Decision

7An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code.

8Having reviewed the Application I am of the view that it is plain and obvious that this Application is beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and accordingly, the Application is dismissed. The applicant has failed to identify an act of discrimination related to a ground of the Code. The applicant has not explained how any of the respondent’s alleged actions involve a Code-related ground of discrimination including record of offences and reprisal, the two grounds cited in the Application. I further note that the applicant has not provided any submissions to the Tribunal to explain how his Application relates to the Code’s jurisdiction after the Tribunal communicated to the applicant that it would consider this further information before deciding whether to dismiss or proceed with the Application.

9The applicant was also informed on July 5, 2010 that his Application remained incomplete and that the applicant had 30 days to provide the required information or the Tribunal would close the applicant’s file. The applicant has provided the required information. The decision to dismiss the Application is made only on the basis that it is plain and obvious that the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.