Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Elaine Morrissey Applicant
-and-
Investors Group Financial Services, Adecco Employment Services and Kathleen Duguay Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: March 23, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 624 Indexed as: Morrissey v. Investors Group Financial Services
1The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of record of disability by the three named respondents. One of the named respondents, Kathleen Duguay, requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with it. This Interim Decision addresses that request.
2In response to the question "What Happened" in her Application, the applicant refers to a number of documents that were submitted to the Investors Group Financial Services ("Investors Group") and subsequently received from them when she made an internal complaint to them about her manager, Ms Duguay. These documents, which are attached to her Application, reveal that the applicant alleged, and to some extent the Investors Group upheld, that she was the victim of what might be described as a toxic work relationship between herself and Ms Duguay.
3At no point in the applicant's lengthy series of allegations concerning Ms Duguay's conduct does she refer to any differential treatment on the basis of a ground listed under the Code. Although she selects disability as the ground on which she was discriminated against, the applicant does not appear to assert that she had a disability at the time that she worked for Ms Duguay or that this disability was the foundation for any of the ill-treatment she alleges. Rather the applicant appears to assert that as a result of this ill-treatment, she developed a disability of some unspecified nature.
4The individual respondent correctly states that the Tribunal does not adjudicate general claims of unfairness. There must be a nexus between the allegation and a ground under the Code. That is, each allegation must, if true, amount to an infringement of the Code.
5With respect to the allegation of 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.
6To successfully make out a claim of reprisal, an applicant must demonstrate that they experienced reprisal for:
- 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.
7In answer to the question "Please explain why you believe you were reprised against," the applicant states:
I believe that because of the Human Resource investigation and because of the constructive dismissal-resignation that my employer did want to have to pay my benefits throughout my medical leave. Conversations with both my employer and with Lynne Mario from Assistant Payroll will confirm this motive for reprisal.
8It is unclear from the above the factual basis on which the applicant is asserting reprisal. Moreover, it is unclear whether the applicant is asserting that she experienced reprisal on the basis of claiming or enforcing a right under the Code or simply for having initiated an internal investigation of conduct unrelated to any Code ground.
9The applicant is directed to provide further particulars with respect to her allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal. She is also directed to provide submissions with respect to why these allegations are within the power (jurisdiction) of the Tribunal to decide. This material must be served and filed with the Tribunal within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
10Following receipt of the applicant's further particulars and submissions, the respondents shall have a further 10 days in which to file further argument on the question of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to deal with the allegations.
11After receipt of the submissions, the Tribunal will make a determination of its jurisdiction over this matter, which might result in the dismissal of all or a portion of the Application. If the Tribunal does not receive submissions from the applicant, as directed above, this Application may be dismissed as abandoned.
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of March, 2010.
"Signed by"
____________________________________
Naomi Overend Vice-chair