Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
May Schell Applicant
-and-
County of Simco Respondent
decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 13, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2074 Indexed as: Schell v. Simco (County)
1This Application was filed on June 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 discrimination with respect to employment. The applicant checked off “record of offences” and “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as the grounds of discrimination alleged in her Application.
2The applicant alleges that at she was suspended from work as a result of being held responsible for a medication error.
3On August 18, 2010, the Tribunal issued a letter informing the applicant of the Tribunal’s intent to dismiss the Application because the Application did not appear to raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The Tribunal’s letter indicated that the applicant failed to identify how the respondent’s behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of “record of offences” or “reprisal”. The Tribunal invited the applicant to file submissions within 30 days of the letter explaining how the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.
4The applicant filed submissions on September 13, 2010. In her submissions, the applicant indicates that she is now suffering from mental health concerns related to the discipline she experienced flowing from the medical error.
5The two grounds cited by the applicant are “record of offences” and “reprisal”. The term “record of offences” is defined in section 10(1) of the Code as follows:
“[R]ecord of offences” means a conviction for,
(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or
(b) an offence in respect of any provincial enactment.
6Section 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.
7The 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, age, gender, race, etc.). The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate unfairness in employment relationships or dismissals, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code.
8The applicant’s narrative does not clearly identify how the respondent subjected her to discrimination because of “record of offences” or “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as understood under the Code. The applicant clearly feels that she has been treated unfairly, but she does not explain how the alleged mistreatment occurred in relation to the ground of “record of offences”, or because of an attempt on her part to claim and enforce her Code rights, or her refusal to infringe the Code rights of others.
9Given that the Application lacks sufficient information regarding a basis for the alleged Code violation, the Tribunal cannot proceed with this Application.
10The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 13^th^ day of October, 2010
”signed by”________________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair