Chambers v. Littell, 2010 HRTO 287

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christine Chambers

Applicant

-and-

Mark Littell and David Clarke

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: February 8, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 287

Indexed as: Chambers v. Littell

1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), which alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of association with a person identified by a ground listed in the Code and reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The Application contains a narrative involving her employer, the City of Brantford (the “City”), and the respondents, one of whom is a Councillor of the City and the other a City employee. The narrative describes the respondents confronting the applicant for violating the City’s Code of Conduct, and making her employment difficult for her. It appears from the applicant’s and the respondents’ documents that the applicant had e-mailed an outside party, who the respondents describe as a political activist, about a City matter, using her work e-mail address and computer.

3A review of the Application and the Reply does not reveal any connection between the conduct of the respondents and the alleged ground of discrimination, association with a person identified by a ground listed in the Code. Also, there does not appear to be a connection between the conduct of the respondents and reprisal as defined by the Code. Instead, it appears that the applicant has checked the “association” and “reprisal” boxes on the Application because she felt that she was being punished for associating with the outside party described as a political activist. There is no indication in the Application or the Reply that the respondents’ treatment of the applicant was in any way connected to any of the grounds identified in section 5 of the Code: race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability. Similarly, with reference to section 8 of the Code, there is no indication that the applicant was or is being punished for trying to claim and/or enforce rights under the Code.

4The Tribunal does not have a general power to remedy claims of unfair treatment, but rather, bases its jurisdiction on the provisions of the Code, and specifically, the prohibited grounds of discrimination covered by the Code.

5The Tribunal therefore directs the applicant to provide written submissions addressing the connection between the alleged grounds of discrimination and the conduct of the respondents. The applicant should include the facts that she understands demonstrate discrimination related to a personal characteristic of the person to whom she e-mailed. That personal characteristic must be related to a ground listed in section 5 of the Code. The applicant’s submissions must also describe how the respondents’ conduct relates to reprisal and rights described in the Code.

6The applicant must deliver her submissions to the respondents and file them with the Tribunal within 15 days of receiving this Interim Decision. The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca, or from the Registrar. The Guide sets out sources of assistance that may be available to her.

7The respondents may respond to the applicant’s submissions within 7 days of their receipt of her submissions. The respondents’ submissions should be provided to the applicant and filed with the Tribunal.

8Upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal may determine the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the matter or may issue further directions.

9The Tribunal acknowledges that the respondents have not requested a deferral of the Application, but have requested that the Application be dismissed because the allegations involve the same facts and issues being dealt with in a grievance proceeding. It appears from their documentation that the parties are presently mediating because the applicant was not satisfied by a Step 2 Hearing. This request by the respondents and the Request to Intervene by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 181 will be dealt with, if necessary, at a later date.

10I am not seized.