Fay Grange v. City of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 2190

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Fay Grange

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto , Mark Lawson, Ann Ulusoy, Lucy Stern/Troisi, Arther Beauregard, Donna Kovachis, Katley Wiele and Don Boyle

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: December 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2190

Indexed as: Grange v. Toronto (City)

1The applicant filed this Application on September 2, 2011, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of race, colour, ancestry, place or origin, ethnic origin and sex.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the proposed respondents. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether all or part of 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. The Notice is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.

4On October 6, 2011, the Tribunal Registrar sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) to the applicant that noted the Application as against the proposed respondents Mark Lawson, Ann Ulusoy, Arthur Beauregard and Donna Kovachis appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination allegedly committed by these respondents. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the Application as it related to these proposed respondents was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant filed her submissions on November 16, 2011.

5The applicant states in the narrative of her Application that she has been employed by the City of Toronto for a number of years. The individual respondents identified all appear to have been in positions superior to the applicant in the workplace hierarchy and several of them had direct supervisory authority over her and her work.

6An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Morin c. Alliance de la function publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58, Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63, and Argiropoulos v. University of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 11552). A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the application.

7The applicant alleges amongst other things that the proposed respondents were participants in what is alleged to have been a pattern of subtle racial discrimination, such as inequitable work assignments, insufficient staffing support, isolation and exclusion from formal and informal workplace networks, excessive monitoring and discipline and removal of supervisory responsibilities. On the face of the Application and response to the NOID, the applicant appears to allege differential treatment by the respondents on the basis of the grounds cited above. As such, it is not plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

8A copy of the Application, this Interim Decision and the submissions filed by the applicant in response to the NOID will be sent to the respondents. The respondents are directed to file a full Response to the Application, which could include submissions on the issue of jurisdiction.

9I am not seized of this matter.