HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Doug Lantz
Applicant
-and-
Kaycan Ltd., Nancy Mohring and Ethel Smith
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Date: October 5, 2010
Citation: 2010 HRTO 2029
Indexed as: Lantz v. Kaycan
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Doug Lantz, Applicant ) Self-represented
Kaycan Ltd., Nancy Mohring ) Allison Taylor, Counsel and Ethel Smith, Respondents )
ii
[1] The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
[2] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on March 17, 2010 which alleges that the respondents subjected him to harassment and reprisal with respect to employment. In section 5, he checked off the box for “Sex, Including Sexual Harassment, Pregnancy, and Gender Identity”, but crossed out all of the words except for “Harassment”. He also checked off the box for “Reprisal or Threat of Reprisal”, and in section A39 checked off the box for “I claimed or enforced my rights under the Code”.
[3] The Application contains general allegations of harassment and reprisal, but there are no allegations of harassment that relate to any specific Code grounds, and there is no explanation as to how the applicant claimed or enforced his rights under the Code.
[4] The applicant also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings on June 4, 2010, which requests that his Application be amended to include “harassment (bullying)” and “poisoning the work atmosphere”, but there are no further details explaining how the requested amendment relates to any Code grounds.
[5] The respondents filed a Response on June 11, 2010, and a Request for an Order During Proceedings on July 14, which deny the allegations of harassment and reprisal, and request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application because it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Specifically, the respondents state that none of the applicant’s allegations relate to Code grounds.
[6] The applicant filed a Reply on June 23, 2010, which provides further details of his allegations of harassment and reprisal, but again, there are no allegations of harassment that relate to any specific Code grounds, and there is no explanation as to how the applicant claimed or enforced his rights under the Code.
[7] The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over every dispute between an employee and an employer; it only has jurisdiction when the Application alleges that there were violations of the Code.
[8] Section 5(2) of the Code states:
Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability. [Emphasis added]
[9] 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 for so doing.
[10] The Application does not allege that the respondents harassed or discriminated against the applicant because of his race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability. It also does not allege that the actions of the respondent constituted a reprisal or threat of reprisal within the meaning of the Code.
[11] Accordingly, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application, and it is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of October, 2010.
“Signed by”
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair