Mirco Buth v. City of Ottawa, 2010 HRTO 2109

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mirco Buth Applicant

-and-

City of Ottawa Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 21, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2109 Indexed as: Buth v. Ottawa (City)

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on July 26, 2010, pursuant to section 34 of the [Ontario ](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html)Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of disability and family status.

2In the Application, the applicant alleges that he experienced mistreatment in his employment. The applicant indicates that the alleged mistreatment gave rise to health concerns and appears to suggest that, once the respondent became aware of his health concerns, the respondent took steps to isolate him in the workplace. The Application further suggests that the fact the applicant attended to his children’s medical appointments and limited his work week to 35 hours because of his young family may have been a factor that contributed to the termination of his employment. The applicant also indicates that he was “labeled” for raising concerns regarding the level of protection management had with respect to freedom from harassment from staff.

3On September 9, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis the narrative appeared to fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent and therefore was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal invited submissions from the applicant with respect to this issue.

4The applicant provided such submissions by way of letter dated October 6, 2010. In his submissions, the applicant argued that the Application was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because he was allegedly dismissed due to his medical circumstances and his need for accommodation.

5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6Based on the Application and the applicant’s submissions, I am satisfied that that the applicant’s allegations relate to the ground of “disability” and “family status” and raise concerns with respect to reprisal. In the circumstances, it is not plain and obvious that the Application does not raise matters covered by the Code. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application. The Registrar is directed to serve the Application and copy of this Interim Decision on the respondent. This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application.

7I am not seized of this matter.