HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Vanessa Gyles
Applicant
-and-
2212088 Ontario Inc. dba Edible Arrangements Store # 1107, Colleen Kehl and Ramandeep Shina
Respondents
interim decision
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Date: January 14, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 108
Indexed as: Gyles v. 2212088 Ontario
[1] This is an Application filed by the applicant on May 10, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the request of the personal respondent Colleen Kehl for early dismissal of the Application as against her for the reason that the Application does not allege that she committed any discriminatory acts that are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
[2] Ms. Kehl submits that the Application specifically alleges that she personally infringed the right of the applicant to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, colour and place of origin. She maintains that there is no employee-employer relationship between the applicant and her and, therefore, the Application as it relates to her falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
[3] The applicant alleges that she was employed by the corporate respondent, Edible Arrangements Store # 1107, a franchised business owned by Ms. Shina, a personal respondent. The applicant claims that while she was at work, Ms. Kehl, the franchisee of another Edible Arrangements business, phoned making disparaging racial remarks about her. According to the applicant, when she complained to Ms. Shina she was fired.
[4] The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is based on the provisions of the Code which provide protection against discrimination in five social areas one of which is “with respect to employment”. In my view “with respect to employment” is very broad and may well encompass employment related matters beyond the usual employer-employee relationship. It is clear that in this matter the applicant’s employment was involved.
[5] In my view, the question of whether the Application raises allegations as against Ms. Kehl within a Code protected social area cannot be determined at this preliminary stage. This is a matter that will require an assessment of the facts and evidence, along with an interpretation of the law in this area.
[6] Ms. Kehl’s Request to dismiss the Application as against her on the basis that it fails to raise a Code-related area is therefore denied, without prejudice to her right to make a further request after the applicant has presented evidence at the hearing based on the same facts and issues.
[7] I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of January, 2011.
“Signed by”
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair