Michelin v. Nishnawbe Gamik Friendship Centre, 2011 HRTO 162

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Neil Michelin

Applicant

-and-

Nishnawbe Gamik Friendship Centre

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: January 24, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 162

Indexed as: Michelin v. Nishnawbe Gamik Friendship Centre

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on April 15, 2010 alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, family status and marital status contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

2On November 23, 2010, the respondent filed a partial Response, where it requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on an early basis. The respondent simultaneously filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal. The respondent argues that the Application is not properly within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the substance of the complaint is wrongful dismissal from employment, there is no evidence of discrimination and no discrimination alleged in the complaint.

3On December 29, 2010, the applicant filed a Reply opposing the respondent’s Request to dismiss. The applicant submits that his allegations are properly within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

DECISION

4The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment) on the basis of specific grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, race, family status, etc.). In the present case, the applicant has specified the prohibited grounds race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, family status and marital status. Without predetermining the facts and issues, it appears the applicant alleges that he was discriminated against when his employment was terminated because the respondent questioned his status as an Indian and his spiritual and cultural beliefs. The applicant alleges that he was told that he was not Nishnawbe and did not have the right to carry medicines and sacred items.

5While the parties contest the reasons for termination, there appears to be common ground amongst the parties that the applicant’s employment was dismissed. The respondent disputes the nature of the human rights concerns and offer a different version of the events. Specifically, the respondent argues that the applicant was dismissed during his probationary period due to his performance and the financial needs of the respondent organization.

6On my review of the material before me, I am satisfied that the Application raises issues in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide. As such, the respondent’s Request to dismiss the Application without a hearing and without filing a full Response is denied.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal orders as follows:

• The respondent is ordered to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the applicant a Full Response (Form 2) within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The respondent is directed to indicate in its Full Response as to whether or not it is willing to participate in mediation; and

• The applicant is ordered to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent a Reply within 14 days of receipt of the respondent’s Full Response.

8I am not seized of this matter.