Emmanuel Oxley v. Vaughan Fire Rescue Service, 2010 HRTO 2250

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Emmanuel Oxley

Applicant

-and-

Vaughan Fire Rescue Service, City of Vaughan, and Paul Armstrong

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: November 10, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2250 Indexed as: Oxley v. Vaughan Fire Rescue Service

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 March 24, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin. The Application makes a number of allegations specifically about Paul Armstrong who is the applicant’s captain. The Application has not yet been sent to the respondents.

2On October 5, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against certain respondents (“NOID”) to the applicant. In the NOID, the Tribunal stated that it appeared that the Application as against certain named respondents, Greg Senay and Clayton Harris, may be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination against these individuals. The Tribunal requested that the applicant provide written submissions explaining how these individuals were alleged to have breached the Code.

3The applicant faxed his submissions on November 4, 2010. He explained that Greg Senay is a Fire Chief who, along with his senior command team, made the decision to send the applicant to his current station where Paul Armstrong is the captain. The applicant submits, “As Chief of the department Mr. Senay is ultimately responsible for what ever [sic] happens in the fire department”. With respect to Clayton Harris, the applicant identifies him as being Mr. Senay’s boss and “is responsible for Mr. Senay’s actions”.

4In my view, the Application against Mr. Senay and Mr. Harris does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. There are no specific allegations against them in the Application and the submissions provided by the applicant do not establish how these respondents are alleged to have violated the Code.

5The Tribunal therefore orders that Mr. Senay and Mr. Harris be removed as respondents to the Application. The style of cause shall be amended accordingly.

6I am not seized of this matter.