Charlena Traux v. Mac’s Convenience Store and Barb Elwell, 2010 HRTO 2277

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Charlena Traux

Applicant

-and-

Mac’s Convenience Store and Barb Elwell

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: November 16, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2277 Indexed as: Traux v. Mac’s Convenience Store

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on September 3, 2010, alleging reprisal with respect to employment. The Application alleges that the respondents unfairly accused the applicant of monetary shortages while she worked as a cashier and wrongfully dismissed her from their employment.

2On October 13, 2010, the Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis the Application failed to identify any specifics acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code and/or failed to allege a ground or area of discrimination. The applicant was given 30 days to file written submissions explaining why she believed the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3The applicant filed submissions on November 10, 2010. In her submissions, the applicant asserts that she has ample evidence to prove that the respondent unfairly deducted pay for monetary shortages which were not her fault. The applicant submits the Tribunal should accept jurisdiction over the Application to help others because the applicant believes the respondents are likewise improperly treating other employees.

4The applicant clearly feels that she has been treated unfairly, but she does not explain how the alleged mistreatment occurred in relation to a Code ground, or because of an attempt on her part to claim and enforce her Code rights, or her refusal to infringe the Code rights of others.

5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender and age, etc.). The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of workplace unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code. The applicant has not identified any ground of discrimination or basis upon which she alleges that the Code was violated.

6I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.