Elieen Lane v. Walmart Canada, 2011 HRTO 708

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elieen Lane Applicant

-and-

Walmart Canada Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: April 13, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 708 Indexed as: Lane v. Walmart Canada

1This Application was filed on February 11, 2011 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of record of offences. While there were a number of accompanying documents with the Application, no narrative explaining the alleged who/what/when/where was provided in response to Application Question 8.

2On March 16, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) indicating that it appears that the Application does not raise an issue the Tribunal has the jurisdiction (power) to resolve because the Application does not describe how the respondent’s alleged behaviour was related to the Code ground of “record of offences”.

3On April 1, 2011, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID, now indicating that she believes that she was subjected to age discrimination. These submissions did not provide any particulars of the alleged incidents of discrimination.

4At this stage of the proceedings (before the Application has been delivered to the respondent), the Tribunal will only dismiss an Application if it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside its jurisdiction.

5I note that the ground of discrimination identified in the Application is different from the allegation contained in the applicant’s submissions in response to the NOID. Accordingly, within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant is directed to file with the Tribunal a detailed statement in response to Question 8 of the Application. Her statement must describe each element that she believes constitutes discrimination. For each element, she must describe what happened, who was involved, and when and where it happened and how these circumstances relate to a Code protected ground. If the applicant fails to respond by this deadline the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned.

6The Application and the applicant’s detailed statement in response to Question 8 will be delivered to the respondent along with a copy of this Interim Decision. The respondent is not required to file a response until directed to do so by the Tribunal.

7The Tribunal may address issues regarding its jurisdiction at a later stage in the proceedings, either of its own initiative or at the request of a party.

8I am not seized.