Mahmood Badvi v. Voyageur Transportation and Brad Rice, 2011 HRTO 1319

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mahmood Badvi Applicant

-and-

Voyageur Transportation and Brad Rice Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: July 11, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1319 Indexed as: Badvi v. Voyageur Transportation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Mahmood Badvi, Applicant | Self-represented

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on March 14, 2011, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, creed and record of offences by the respondents. In response to a request from the Tribunal for further information to complete the Application the applicant added the allegation of reprisal.

2In his Application, which includes a number of attached documents, the applicant alleges that he has been working in the taxi industry in London, Ontario since 2006 and that he and many other drivers had been “harassed, abused, misbehaved and bullied” by the respondent’s dispatch staff. He also alleges retaliation because of his involvement in initiating an online petition which provided a forum for members of the taxi industry to air their grievances against the company as well as reprisal for attempting to enforce his rights under the Code.

3The applicant does not set out any examples of specific conduct which make a connection between the applicant’s experiences in the taxi industry and his race, creed or record of offences. He also appears to have misconstrued record of offences to mean a record of disciplinary action taken in the workplace. The prohibited ground “record of offences” is defined in the Code as a conviction for a provincial offence or an offence for which a pardon has been granted under the federal Criminal Records Act R.S.C., 1985, c. C-47.

4As a result of these omissions a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued on May 31, 2011 advising the applicant that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The applicant was given an opportunity to respond to the notice in writing.

5In response to the NOID, the applicant did not provide any specific examples of conduct which could help the Tribunal understand the connection between the general allegations of unfairness in the taxi industry and the applicant’s claim that those experiences are related to his race and creed. With respect to the reprisal allegation, the applicant claims that his treatment was due in part to his efforts to claim and enforce his rights under the Code. The online petition the applicant initiated was designed to give members of the taxi industry an opportunity to air their general concerns about experiences of unfairness. I would not describe it as an attempt to enforce the applicant’s rights under the Code. He did provide the Tribunal with a copy of letter dated April 6, 2010 which he sent to the president of the corporate respondent and which alleges violations of the Code. Like the Application however, this letter contains statements about experiences of unfairness in the taxi industry but does not contain any specific examples of conduct which could be said to be connected to the applicant’s race or creed. In addition, the applicant does not say what act of reprisal he experienced for attempting to enforce his rights under the Code. The last incident alleged against the employer occurred before this letter was sent to the president of the corporate respondent.

6The Tribunal’s power to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code, which, among other things, prohibits discrimination on the basis of the grounds set out in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness which are not covered by the Code. In this case, there are no facts alleged which connect the respondent’s actions to the grounds of race, creed or reprisal under the Code.

7I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.