Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Wayne Tanner Applicant
- and -
Bluewater District School Board Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: July 11, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1324 Indexed as: Tanner v. Bluewater District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Wayne Tanner, Applicant | Self Represented
1This is an Application filed on March 22, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal or threat of reprisal.
2The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
3The applicant states that he was employed as a janitor by the respondent in 2002 when the respondent employer accused him of tampering with the water supply at a facility where he worked. He alleges that since that time, he has been subject to harassment, slander, discipline and ultimately termination of his employment.
4The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over every dispute between an employee and an employer; it only has jurisdiction when the Application alleges that there were violations of the Code.
5Section 5(2) of the Code states:
Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability. [Emphasis added]
6Section 8 of the Code states:
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.
7While he has alleged that the actions of the respondent constituted a reprisal or threat of reprisal, the applicant has not explained what link there is between the respondent’s actions and reprisal or threat of reprisal within the meaning of the Code.
8On April 26, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) stating that it appeared that the Application is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the basis of timeliness and additionally because he had failed to explain how the respondent’s behaviour was related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code or refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code. The Tribunal invited the applicant to make submissions in response to the NOID.
9In response to the Tribunal’s NOID, the applicant wrote alleging that in the years which followed the 2002 accusation, he was subject to various forms of harassment and retaliation, including being improperly “bumped” out of his position and re-assigned to another school, being denied a transfer to another school, being slandered, having other false allegations and performance issues raised by the respondent employer, being disciplined by the respondent employer and by having his employment terminated in January 2006. He also states that allegations were made about his wife who worked at a daycare attached to the school. He alleges that his employment was terminated because he had asked when and how his children and wife “and all other users of the facility were drinking untreated water”, why he was blamed, why it was “covered up”, why “the Union allowed false allegations and harassment to go unchallenged” and why leadership of the union had “threatened [him] and [his] wife with ‘trouble’ if any of these matters were pursued”.
10He states that he has made attempts to have the matter of water quality addressed by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and has made three applications to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) alleging a breach of the Duty of Fair Representation by the union and has also made applications under the Employment Standards Act (the “ESA”), seeking payment in relation to the termination of his employment. The applicant has not been successful at the OLRB or under the ESA, and the MOE has declined to undertake an investigation of his allegations. He also indicates that he has contacted the Ontario Provincial Police, the Information and Privacy Commission, the Minister of Education, the Ombudsman, MPP offices and the Ontario College of Teachers with regard to his concerns. He advises that he has not been successful in any of his applications.
11The applicant also indicates several actions he has taken in an attempt to secure documents and clear his name, including the above-noted applications and communications as well as a 2009 Application to the Tribunal.
12A review of documentation at the Tribunal indicates that the applicant filed a previous Application, containing many of the same allegations as he makes in this Application, and that following a notice to him indicating that his Application was incomplete, the file was closed administratively when the requested information was not provided. The Tribunal’s records do not indicate that the Application was ever provided to the respondent for response and the applicant has not indicated how he alleges that the respondent’s actions are linked as a reprisal for his previous Application.
13The NOID directed the applicant to make submissions, which would explain how the respondent’s behaviour was related to reprisal under the Code. It is clear that the applicant disagrees with the conclusions reached by the various government bodies he has approached, such as the OLRB, MOE, etc. It appears that he alleges that the respondent seeks to “cover up” issues regarding water treatment, which he has sought to press, and that its efforts have been to stop him from bringing these issues to light. He has not, however, provided an explanation for how he links the respondent’s actions to reprisal under the Code. The power of the Tribunal is limited to dealing with applications alleging a violation of the Code, which prohibits discrimination on specific grounds.
14The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the grounds listed in the Code. The applicant’s submissions do not explain how the respondent’s behaviour was related to reprisal or threat of reprisal for having claimed and enforced his rights under the Code, for having instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code, or for refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code. In the absence of a link between the allegations made and an explanation for how the respondent’s behaviour was related to a reprisal under the Code, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider this Application.
15Accordingly, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application, and it is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of July, 2011.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Maureen Doyle Vice-chair