Blackmore v. Artsmarketing Services, 2010 HRTO 870

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Myrna Blackmore

Applicant

-and-

Artsmarketing Services Inc., Trevor Evans, John Shifman and Bryan Taylor

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: April 21, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 870

Indexed as: Blackmore v. Artsmarketing Services

APPEARANCES

Myrna Blackmore, Applicant ) self-represented

Artsmarketing Services Inc., Trevor Evans, ) self-represented John Shifman and Bryan Taylor, ) Respondents )

1This is an Application filed June 29, 2009 under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"). The underlying complaint (the "Complaint") was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") on September 22, 2006. The Application alleges that the applicant was subjected to discrimination in relation to employment on the basis of ethnic origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation and reprisal.

BACKGROUND

2The corporate respondent ("Artsmarketing") is engaged in telemarketing and telefundraising for non-profit organizations. The applicant was hired by Artsmarketing in April, 2004 as a telemarketer/fundraiser. The essence of the claim is that a co-worker, the respondent Mr. Evans, acted inappropriately towards the applicant and that her manager Mr. Taylor failed to take steps to stop him.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

3The applicant set out a myriad of grounds of discrimination including reprisal. Under s. 8 of the Code every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under the Code and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under the Code without reprisal or threat of reprisal. The applicant, however, has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that the respondents' actions were 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. Accordingly, the reprisal claim fails.

4The applicant raises a number of allegations with respect to Mr. Evans' conduct in the workplace. She claims that Mr. Evans would interrupt her phone calls, stare at her and throw his coat over a chair rather than putting it in the closet. The applicant's evidence to support these allegations was couched in generalities and largely devoid of particulars but, more damaging, was the applicant's failure to link any alleged mistreatment to any of the grounds of discrimination raised by the applicant in her complaint.

5The applicant complained that Mr. Evans brushed up against her from behind and that she found this offensive. Mr. Evans could not remember ever brushing up against the applicant and that if he did it was not intentional. He pointed out that the office space was very confined with little moving room so that brushing against fellow workers would be likely. He testified, moreover, that he is a 65 year old gay man with no appetite whatsoever for brushing up against the applicant or any woman for that matter. I am satisfied that any brushing was innocuous and does not evidence discrimination contrary to the Code.

6It is evident that the applicant and Mr. Evans have clashing personalities and do not get along. This leads to disputes at their place of employment. However, this Tribunal does not have a general power to deal with employment disputes. Its power is limited to hearing applications that allege violations of the Code. In my view, the applicant has raised a litany of general complaints and allegations that do not have a nexus to the Code.

7Consequently, the Application is dismissed.