Sekar Muthiah v. Mother Parkers Tea & Coffee Inc., 2011 HRTO 329

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sekar Muthiah

Applicant

-and-

Mother Parkers Tea & Coffee Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: February 15, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 329

Indexed as: Muthiah v. Mother Parkers Tea & Coffee

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sekar Muthiah, Applicant Self-represented

1This Application, which was filed on October 25, 2010, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, family status and age.

2On January 27, 2011 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application as it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because:

a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

The NOID directed the applicant to provide submissions as to whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider his Application. The applicant provided written submissions on January 30, 2011.

3I have reviewed the applicant’s submissions, documents and Application. The applicant identifies himself as a 48 year of Indian origin with two children, and as a “member of a visible minority group”. The applicant alleges discrimination when he was not made a full time permanent employee, anytime during the six year period he worked as a contract employee for the respondent. He further alleges the respondent discriminated against him by refusing him benefits, not considering him for a full time position, not giving him a parking space and not granting him a pay increase. Finally he alleges discrimination arising out of the termination and harassment for having his name removed from his workplace uniform.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

4While the applicant repeatedly refers in his Application and submissions to discrimination, with one exception he does not indicate how this alleged discriminatory treatment is related to any of the grounds identified in his Application.

5The one exception states “Because in the past 6-years the company did not hired me in the full time position, but the company hired other community people other than Indian for so many full time positions from 2004 to 2010.”

6An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. Having considered the applicant’s submissions and the Application I am of the view that the applicant has failed to identify any act of discrimination, that is related to the Code based on age or family status. In his Application the applicant identifies that he is 48 years old and suggests that he was discriminated against, because he is 48 years old and “it will be very, very hard and difficult to find work”. This does not indicate why his age may have been a factor in how he was treated by the respondent. The applicant identifies in his Application that he is married and the parent of two, and was discriminated against because he filed for bankruptcy and he was “discharged from bankruptcy because of my family situation”. This simply does not indicate how the respondent’s actions discriminated against him because of his family status.

7The applicant was given a further opportunity to explain why he was of the view that he was discriminated against, when he was sent the NOID and asked for submissions. I find it significant that he makes no reference whatsoever in his submissions as to why he believes he was discriminated against because of his age or family status. Based on the information before me I find it plain and obvious that the allegations of discrimination based on age and family status do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

8However, I cannot conclude that it is plain and obvious that the allegations of discrimination based on race, colour and place of origin fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction given the applicant’s reference, albeit very general reference, to the respondent not hiring the applicant, but hiring persons “other than Indian”. That being said I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided enough details about why he thinks the respondent’s hiring practices or other decisions discriminated against him as an Indian so that the respondent can understand and respond to his claim. The applicant must provide sufficient details, such as date, time, place, and persons involved, all or which are identified as questions to be answered on the Application form, so that the respondent can challenge and respond to the applicant’s allegations of discrimination based on race, colour or place of origin.

9Accordingly, the applicant is directed to deliver to the Tribunal, within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision, an amended Application containing detailed account of the facts which he believes supports his Application. In particular, the applicant should identify when, where and how the respondent allegedly discriminated against him because of his race, colour or place of origin. The applicant should identify and describe the specific events of concern to him whether it be a specific job competition, or a specific incident of alleged harassment and explain why he is of the view that he was treated differently on these occasions because of his race, colour or place of origin.

10The applicant’s failure to respond as directed may result in the Tribunal determining that the Application has been abandoned.

11The respondent is not required to respond unless and until the Tribunal directs it to do so.

12I am not seized of this matter.