Julie-Anne Odaisky v. D & G Landscaping, 2010 HRTO 2308

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julie-Anne Odaisky

Applicant

-and-

D & G Landscaping

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: November 19, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2308

Indexed as: Odaisky v. D & G Landscaping

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondent discriminated against her and/or harassed her in respect of employment on the basis of reprisal.

2On October 13, 2010, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application on the basis that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it does not allege discrimination on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code; and because there are no allegations in the Application that the respondent reprised against the applicant, that is, that the respondent retaliated against the applicant because she sought to claim or enforce her rights under the Code; commenced or participated in proceedings under the Code or because she refused to infringe someone else’s rights under the Code. (s. 8).

3In her Application and submissions filed in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant claims that the respondent falsely accused her of misconduct and unjustly terminated her employment. However, although the applicant alleges that she was mistreated in respect of employment, there are no facts alleged which connect the respondent’s actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.

4Similarly, although the applicant has ticked off the box on her Application form indicating that the respondent reprised against her contrary to the Code, she does not allege any facts that the respondent reprised against her within the meaning of s. 8 of the Code (see above).

5The Tribunal’s power to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code, which, among other things, prohibits discrimination and harassment with respect to employment on the basis of the grounds set out in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness which are not covered by the Code. In this case, there are no facts alleged which connect the respondent’s actions to reprisal or any other prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.

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