Iharosy v. Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council, 2011 HRTO 1840

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leslie Iharosy

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC) and Ruxandra Ilicea

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: October 12, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1840

Indexed as: Iharosy v. Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on July 25, 2011 alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of record of offences and reprisal.

2By correspondence dated August 30, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The applicant was advised that, based on a review of the Application, the Application does not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal can resolve. Specifically, the applicant’s narrative failed to describe or explain any specific acts of discrimination based on the ground of “record of offences” or “reprisal” within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents in relation to a Code-protected ground. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions as to the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3The applicant filed submissions on October 3, 2011. The applicant indicates that he does not have a record of offence; however, the respondents have treated him as if he does have convictions. The applicant believes that the respondents are treating him this way because his former employer has made derogatory and false statements about him to the respondents.

DECISION

4An application will be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Based on the Application, I am satisfied that the applicant’s allegations do not relate to the Code-protected ground of “record of offences” and do not raise concerns with respect to reprisal.

5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender and age, etc.). The applicant alleges that he has been subjected to mistreatment because of record of offences. “Record of offences” is specifically defined in section 10 of the Code as follows:

“record of offences” means a conviction for,

(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or

(b) an offence in respect of any provincial enactment.

6The applicant also alleges reprisals. Section 8 of the Code prohibits reprisals as follows:

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.

7The Application indicates that the applicant has no criminal convictions. While the applicant clearly feels that he has been treated unfairly, he does not explain how the alleged mistreatment occurred in relation to a Code-protected ground or because of an attempt on his part to claim and enforce his Code rights.

8The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code. The applicant has not identified any ground of discrimination or basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated. I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide.

9Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.