Bull v. Ontario (Ministry of Education), 2011 HRTO 1114

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stephen Bull

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Ministry of Education

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: June 8, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1114

Indexed as: Bull v. Ontario (Ministry of Education)

Written Submissions

Stephen Bull, Applicant ) Self-represented

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") on March 24, 2011. He alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of age. The Application has not yet been sent to the respondent to file a Response.

2The applicant states that he has been employed as a continuing education teacher with the Sudbury Catholic District School Board since February 1998 and is a member of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association in Sudbury ("the union"). He teaches high school credit courses to students who are over the age of 21 and works alongside teachers who teach the same courses to students who are 18 to 21 years of age, yet he is classified as a contract teacher, receives a lower rate of pay and does not receive benefits. He believes that he should get the same remuneration for work of equal value. He has raised this issue, without success, with the union. Attached to the Application were a number of charts setting out the applicant's estimated loss of wages, pension, benefits, sick leave credits, and interest since 1998, which total over $1,300,000.00 and which he seeks as a remedy to his Application.

3With respect to the respondent, the applicant alleges it does not provide adequate funding for continuing education programs as compared to regular secondary school programs, both of which grant the Ontario Secondary School Diploma. This leads, he asserts, to inequalities in pay for continuing education teachers compared with "regular" teachers for work of equal value.

4The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") dated May 4, 2011 to the applicant. The NOID stated that it appeared the Application is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The NOID directed the applicant to provide written submissions addressing these points by June 3, 2011.

5The applicant filed written submissions dated May 30, 2011. In those submissions, the applicant stated that he "expect[ed] that the Ontario Human Rights Commission ["OHRC"] has been informed of his application" and that the Commission could intervene on his behalf and file a new application if the Tribunal determined that discrimination did not occur. He submits that his situation is unfair and asserts that if such treatment is permitted by the Code, then any civil servant who serves over 21-year-olds should be paid at half the rate they would get when providing the same service to 18 to 21-year-olds.

6The applicant raises the possibility that he has not named the correct respondent and suggests that the OHRC, upon investigation, will advise him that he has a case for equal pay for equal work and he should contact the employment standards branch. He states that he is seeking some direction from the Tribunal about how to resolve the discrimination in his workplace or else the Tribunal "has not served my interests as an Ontario citizen".

Decision

7An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is "plain and obvious" on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. See, for example Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code and cannot provide any direction to the applicant about where to further raise his concerns.

8Having reviewed the Application and the applicant's submissions, I am of the view that it is plain and obvious that this Application is beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction and accordingly, the Application is dismissed. The applicant has failed to identify an act of discrimination related to age or any other ground under the Code. The applicant's allegations are based on the ages of the students that he teaches and not his own age. With respect to this respondent, the applicant alleges an alleged lack of funding for continuing education which he does not relate to his own age.

9Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.