HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Adrian Lewis

Applicant

-and-

Shoppers Drug Mart and Gary Griffin

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: April 27, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 919

Indexed as: Lewis v. Shoppers Drug Mart

[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 10, 2009, alleging discrimination in employment. “Reprisal or Threat of Reprisal” and “Association with a Person Identified by a Ground Listed Above” were the only grounds of discrimination checked off in the Application.

[2] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment) on the basis of specific grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender and race, etc.). Section 8 of the Code prohibits reprisals, as follows:

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 for so doing.

[3] Section 12 of the Code prohibits discrimination because of association, as follows:

A right under Part I is infringed where the discrimination is because of relationship, association or dealings with a person or persons identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination.

[4] On February 16, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) the Application because, although the Application alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal as a ground of discrimination, the Application does not allege how the respondents’ behaviour is related 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 under the Code.

[5] In addition, the Application does not explain how the applicant was harassed or discriminated against on the basis of association with a person identified by a ground under the Code.

[6] The applicant was invited to make submissions to the Tribunal, within 30 days of the date of the Notice, explaining why he believes the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide). The Notice also indicated that if he did not file written submissions, the Tribunal would make a decision based only on the information in the Application. To date, although the applicant provided a brief update on his circumstances on February 18, 2010, no actual submissions have been received from the applicant addressing the issues identified in the Notice.

[7] The Application does not allege that the respondents’ behaviour was in relation to reprisal within the meaning of the Code, nor does it explain how the applicant was harassed or discriminated against on the basis of association with a person identified by a ground under the Code. In addition, the applicant has not identified any other ground of discrimination, or basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated.

[8] The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code. In the circumstances, I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of April, 2010.

“Signed By”

Brian Eyolfson

Vice-chair