Patterson v. MPW Industrial Service, 2010 HRTO 2140

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Billy Patterson Applicant

-and-

MPW Industrial Service and Earl Barker Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: October 22, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2140 Indexed as: Patterson v. MPW Industrial Service

Reasons for Decision

1The applicant filed this Application on September 9, 2010, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in the provision of employment on the ground of disability.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether the Application should be dismissed at this preliminary stage because it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3Rule 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. The Notice is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.

4On September 27, 2010, the Tribunal Registrar sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) to the applicant which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination allegedly committed by the respondents based on any of the grounds listed in the Code. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions to identify the specific acts, and an explanation why the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

5The applicant filed submissions on October 14, 2010, specifying in greater detail what had happened to him in the period between April and September 2010. It would appear that the applicant is alleging that the conduct of the respondents worsened his disability. This alleged conduct is not within the jurisdiction of the Code. However, in his submissions in response to the NOID, the applicant also alleged that he experienced differential treatment (being sent home for no reason) and his employment was ultimately terminated because the company no longer wished to deal with his “sickness.”

6Based on the applicant’s submissions, it is not plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

7An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A decision to continue to deal with an Application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the Application.

8A copy of the Application, this Interim Decision and the submissions and documents filed by the applicant in response to the NOID will be sent to the respondents. The respondents are directed to file a full Response to the Application, which could include submissions on the issue of jurisdiction.

9I am not seized of this matter.