Leslie Moss v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 2010 HRTO 666

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leslie Moss

Applicant

-and-

Edward D. Jones & Co.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: March 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 666

Indexed as: Moss v. Edward D. Jones ________________________________________________________________

1In this Application, filed pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), the applicant alleges that the respondent unfairly withheld monies owing to him. The applicant alleges discrimination in the context of employment and contracts but does not identify a ground of discrimination (for example, race, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, and family status) prohibited by the Code.

2The respondent has filed an incomplete Response. It has, however, filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to enforce a settlement which it says was orally agreed to by the parties.

Does the Tribunal have the jurisdiction (power to decide) the Application?

3The applicant alleges he was discriminated against in the context of employment and contracts. The relevant provisions of the Code are:

3. Every person having legal capacity has a right to contract on equal terms without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.

5(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

4The Tribunal does not have a general power to decide whether the respondent treated the applicant fairly or appropriately. The Tribunal's powers relate only to alleged discrimination and violations of the Code. In other words, while the applicant has clearly stated that he feels mistreated by the respondent, to fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, he must also explain how this alleged mistreatment relates to the Code. In particular, he must be able to relate his allegations of unfair treatment to one or more prohibited grounds included in sections 3 and 5 of the Code.

5As the applicant has not identified any prohibited ground, the relationship between the Code and the allegations are not apparent in the Application. Accordingly, there is a significant preliminary issue as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Application.

6Before the matter can proceed, the Tribunal requires additional submissions from the applicant. Within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant shall provide to the respondent and file with the Tribunal written submissions regarding whether there is a connection between the allegations in the Application and the prohibited grounds identified in sections 3 and 5 of the Code.

7The respondent need not take any further steps at this stage of the proceedings.

8The Tribunal will determine whether it has jurisdiction over the Application before considering the respondent's Request for an Order During Proceedings. If the applicant fails to respond, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

9I am not seized of this matter.