HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ainsley Mitchell

Applicant

-and-

Associate Tube Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: March 25, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 599

Indexed as: Mitchell v. Associate Tube

BACKGROUND

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 November 26, 2010 alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of record of offences and reprisal.

2By correspondence dated February 9, 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 allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Code and therefore 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 respondent in relation a Code-protected ground.

3The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions no later than March 11, 2011 as to the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant was also advised that the Tribunal may consider a failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application and dismiss the Application for that reason.

4The applicant did not file submissions with respect to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

DECISION

5An 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 and the applicant’s materials, I am satisfied that 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.

6The Application indicates that the applicant has no criminal convictions. While the applicant clearly feels that he has been treated unfairly in the workplace, 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.

7The 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.). 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.”

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.

9I further find that the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence and the timeline for providing written submissions has elapsed. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.

10Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.