Jeffrey Rollin v. Nello DeCarli, 2010 HRTO 84

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeffrey Rollin

Applicant

-and-

Nello DeCarli

Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: January 18, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 84

Indexed as: Rollin v. Decarli

1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on April 21, 2009. In the Application, the applicant alleges that he was discriminated against when he was dismissed upon his return from a sick day. The Application cites the ground “record of offences.”

2The respondent filed a Response seeking an early dismissal of the Application. The respondent takes the position that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction given that the Application does not disclose discrimination or harassment because of record of offences.

3In an Interim Decision dated November 30, 2009, 2009 HRTO 2063, the Tribunal found that the Application does not disclose a claim of discrimination on the basis of record of offences, given that the applicant did not assert that he has any conviction. In addition, the Tribunal stated as follows:

However, having regard to the material before me, there may be a question of whether or not the allegations relate to some other ground under the Code, particularly disability. At this stage, it is not plain and obvious that the Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and dismissing the Application would be premature.

4The Tribunal invited the applicant to seek to amend the Application within two weeks of the Interim Decision in order to cite a different ground and to provide sufficient particulars. The Tribunal cautioned that if the applicant did not seek to amend his Application within two weeks of the Interim Decision, the Tribunal would consider the respondent’s Request for early dismissal on the basis of the material before it.

5The applicant has not filed a Request seeking to amend his Application nor has he communicated with the Tribunal since the Interim Decision was issued. Having already found that the Application does not disclose a claim of discrimination on the basis of record of offences, and in the absence of an amendment to the Application asserting another ground of discrimination, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.

6The Application is dismissed.