HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jean Mackinnon
Applicant
-and-
Tigertel Communications Inc.
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Mackinnon v. Tigertel Communications Inc.
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on March 10, 2011 alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of record of offences.
2On June 1, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s power to decide because it appeared that the applicant’s allegations did not come within the purview of “record of offences” as defined under the Code. The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOID by no later than July 4, 2011. The applicant did not file submissions.
3On September 8, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction indicating that the Tribunal only has the jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of discrimination brought under the Code involving protected grounds of discrimination and social areas. Section 5 of the Code prohibits discrimination in employment on a number of grounds. It states:
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.
4“Record of offences” is 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(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or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) anoffence in respect of any provincial enactment.
5The Case Assessment Direction noted that based on the information contained in the applicant’s narrative, it was unclear whether the applicant’s concerns relate to “an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted”. It was also unclear whether the applicant’s concerns related to a disability as defined under section 10 of the Code. In the circumstances, the Tribunal required clarification regarding these matters. The Case Assessment Direction required the applicant to file written submissions within 10 days of the date of the Case Assessment Direction providing clarification as to whether or not the applicant was alleging “record of offences” and/or “disability” discrimination.
6The Case Assessment Direction expressly stated that if the applicant failed to respond to the Case Assessment Direction within the specified timeline, the Application would be considered to be abandoned and would be dismissed for that reason.
7The applicant has not filed written submissions in response to the Case Assessment Direction or the NOID, and she has not otherwise corresponded or communicated with the Tribunal.
8In these circumstances, the Tribunal determines that the applicant has abandoned the Application.
9Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of October, 2011.
”signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair