HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sudin Ray
Applicant
-and-
Connexion Family Health Team and Alicia Donohue
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Ray v. Connexion Family Health Team
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Sudin Ray, Applicant ) Self-represented
BACKGROUND
1The applicant filed this Application on June 6, 2011, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the grounds of reprisal or threat of reprisal.
2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondents. The purpose of this Decision is to address whether the Application should be dismissed at this preliminary stage because it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
3Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”). The Notice is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.
4On July 5, 2011, the Tribunal Registrar sent a NOID to the applicant which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination allegedly committed by the respondents based on any of the grounds listed in the Code. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions to identify the specific acts, and an explanation as to why the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
5The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID on July 23, 2011, essentially reasserting the allegations contained in the Application. The applicant states in those submissions with regard to the personal respondent that:
…I was given an employment contract for 5 years without any termination clause, and my employment contract was abruptly terminated without cause after about 1 ½ years since I repeatedly complained to the Board about her abusive behaviour and the effect it was having on the organization, and requested an external mediation. I reported to the Board, not the Chair; yet she bullied me personally and many of my physician colleagues and allied health care providers who reported to me. Simply put, she created a very toxic environment, threatened and used abusive tactics whenever she was not in control of everything and anything even though she is neither trained nor had any experience in managing or leading an organization.
ANALYSIS
6The Tribunal does not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness or wrongdoing outside the areas or grounds prescribed in the Code. See Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390, Fulton-Bell v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, 2009 HRTO 1769, and Grant v. Tierney, 2011 HRTO 1207. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to dealing with disputes that properly fall under the Code.
7Section 5 of the Code reads:
(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.
(2) 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.
Section 8 of the Code reads:
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.
8The applicant states that he believes the personal respondent discriminated against him in the course of his employment but fails to identify himself as a member of one of the groups covered by section 5 of the Code. He also provides no evidence of reprisal within the meaning of section 8 of the Code. I therefore find that the applicant has not made out an allegation of discrimination, harassment or reprisal within the meaning of the Code and therefore the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
9An Application will 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 and any other submissions that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Patterson v. MPW Industrial Service, 2010 HRTO 2140, and Grant, above.
10Based on the Application and applicant’s submissions, I find that it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
ORDER
11The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of August, 2011.
“Signed by”
Alan G. Smith
Member