France Blais v. Lynn Jillings, Cindy Brisbin, Timothy Hill and Debbie Hoffman, 2010 HRTO 2195

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

France Blais

Applicant

-and-

Lynn Jillings, Cindy Brisbin, Timothy Hill and Debbie Hoffman

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: November 3, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2195 Indexed as: Blais v. Jillings

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 8, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment, housing and contracts on the grounds of ancestry, place of origin, family status, marital status, age, association with a person and reprisal. It appears that the respondents are co-workers or supervisors of the applicant and all are union representatives. The Application has not yet been sent to the respondents.

2By letter dated September 15, 2010, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”). The NOID stated that it appeared the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because:

• A review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent(s). and

• You allege discrimination based on “reprisal or threat of reprisal” but have failed to explain how the respondents’ behaviour was related to …. Claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code [s.8].

3The Tribunal requested submissions from the applicant addressing these issues. The applicant sent a fax to the Tribunal, dated September 27, 2010. In it, she explained that she had to move, had been to the hospital and described her need for financial assistance. She also submitted “I got fired by Plant Manager [name], because I filed an Application to the Ministry of Labour and the Human Rights Tribunal. Fired after the Union Grievance went to Arbitration #4”. She stated that a union representative, different from the ones named as personal respondents, offered her a deal to “shut up and not go to the Ministry”. She does not indicate whether or not she accepted an offer.

4Section 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.

5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, accommodation in housing, employment and contracts) on the basis of specific grounds listed in the Code (for example, age, colour, sex, martial status, etc.). The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate unfairness in employment relationships, contracts or housing, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code.

6The applicant’s narrative does not clearly identify how the respondents subjected her to discrimination because of “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as understood under the Code. While she alleges that the plant manager fired her for filing an Application, neither the plant manager nor the applicant’s former employer are named as respondents. There are no allegations contained within the applicant’s narrative that the personal respondents that are named discriminated against her because she claimed or attempted to claim her rights under the Code or that she refused to infringe the Code rights of others.

7Similarly, the applicant’s narrative does not reveal any allegations of how the personal respondents allegedly discriminated against her on the basis of the grounds she has set out. While she clearly feels that she has been treated unfairly, and, as a seasonal employee, has been ignored and/or not treated as well as full time employees by the personal respondents, she does not link her allegations with the Code grounds other than to state that it is because she is from Quebec and speaks with a strong accent.

8Given that the Application lacks sufficient information regarding a basis for the alleged Code violations, the Tribunal cannot proceed with this Application.

9The Application is dismissed.