Carwardine v. Loblaw Companies Limited, 2010 HRTO 381

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ryan Carwardine

Applicant

-and-

Loblaw Companies Limited

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: February 25, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 381

Indexed as: Carwardine v. Loblaw

1This is an Application filed 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 ground of family status, as well as reprisal.

2The narrative filed in support of the Application outlines the applicant’s hiring by the respondent, the initial few weeks of his employment, and his termination from employment. It is not clear how either the ground of family status or reprisal is engaged based on the facts put forward by the applicant in the Application.

3The term “family status” is defined in s. 10 of the Code as follows:

“family status” means the status of being in a parent and child relationship

4With respect to “reprisal”, section 8 of the Code states:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal.

5The applicant does not allege in the Application that the respondent’s behaviour was in response to any of the following:

• Claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;

• Instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or

• Refusing to infringe the right of another person.

6The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment relationships or dismissals, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code.

7The Tribunal requests written submissions from the applicant to address the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the Application. The applicant should explain how his Application raises matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The applicant’s submissions should be filed with the Tribunal by March 5, 2010.

8Following receipt of the submissions, or if the applicant does not provide submissions by the date set, the Tribunal may consider whether the Application should be dismissed under Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which permits it to dismiss all or part of an application that is outside its jurisdiction, or alternatively, whether the Application should be served on the respondent.

9The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website at www.hrto.ca or from the Registrar’s office. Pages 2-3 of the Guide set out sources of assistance that may be available to him.

10I am not seized of this matter.