Erica Davis v. Chester Searles, 2011 HRTO 1915

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Erica Davis

Applicant

-and-

Chester Searles

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: October 24, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1915

Indexed as: Davis v. Searles

1The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed.

2On August 16, 2011, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the allegations in the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide). The applicant filed written submissions on September 9, 2011

3In her Application, the applicant states that she was a minister for The British Methodist Episcopal Church in Guelph (the “church”). The respondent is described as the General Superintendent of the church. She alleges that in March of this year, the respondent ordered her to “move out of the boundaries of the conference,” thereby ending her employment as a Minister.

4The applicant states further in submissions in response to the NOID that the church conference removed her as pastor from the church and “obtained a Court restraining order to keep [her] away from the premises.” She states that under the “Discipline of the Church” she had a right to “be charged in writing of [her] wrongdoing” and a right to appeal.

5On the face of the allegations, the applicant has failed to describe any conduct that would be discrimination on the basis of her creed. That is, while it clear that she has a distinct creed, she does not articulate why the respondent’s treatment of her was based on that creed. The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate all allegations of unfair treatment, but rather can deal only with those disputes in which there are allegations of unequal treatment on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds.

6Given that the applicant has failed to establish that the alleged conduct at issue is related to a ground under the Code, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.