Dumont v. Mattawa Community Living, 2010 HRTO 2216

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Natalie Dumont

Applicant

-and-

Mattawa Community Living

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: November 4, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2216

Indexed as: Dumont v. Mattawa Community Living

1This is an Application 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”).

2By letter dated October 5, 2010, the Tribunal advised the applicant that the Application remains incomplete, in that she has not provided a description of the events that she believes are discrimination. Further, the Tribunal advised that the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code, and that although the applicant alleges discrimination based on “reprisal or threats of reprisal”, she has failed to explain how the respondent's behaviour was related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

3The applicant was directed to provide written submissions responding to the issues identified by the Tribunal. The applicant has sent a letter dated October 27, 2010.

4On review of the material before it, the Tribunal determines that the Application does not raise issues under the Code, and it is dismissed.

5In the Application, when asked to identify what grounds of discrimination apply, the applicant wrote “person being targeted [at] workplace”. In her letter of October 27, the applicant describes a series of events both at her workplace and at home. Many of the events involve the applicant making comments that are perceived as inappropriate or offensive by her coworkers, and the applicant's explanation of her comments. Among the materials submitted with the Application are a letter from her employer of December 2, 2009 and minutes of a meeting of the same date, documenting concerns about the applicant's behaviour in the workplace.

6Nowhere does the applicant allege that she claimed or enforced her rights under the Code, and was subjected to reprisal or threats of reprisal as a result.

7The Tribunal does not have a general authority to inquire into all workplace issues or disputes. Its jurisdiction is derived from the Code, which protects against unequal treatment in employment because of a person's race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

8On my review of the material before me, including the applicant’s submissions of October 27, I find that the Application does not raise issues within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide. It is accordingly dismissed.