Borba v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2011 HRTO 781

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carla Borba Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: April 20, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 781 Indexed as: Borba v. Toronto Transit Commission

1This Application was filed on January 26, 2011 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges that the applicant has experienced reprisal in the workplace. The Application identifies the applicant's union, the Amalgamated Transit Union as an affected party.

2On March 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") indicating that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction over the Application because it appears that (1) the Application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination and (2) the Application does not allege a specific ground of discrimination.

3On April 4, 2011, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID indicating that the last incident described in the Application was November 9, 2010 and that her allegations of reprisal relate to her various workplace concerns as raised with the employer's internal Human Rights Unit regarding disparaging remarks, harassment and unfair treatment.

4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, prior to delivering it to the responding party, if it is "plain and obvious" on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. This includes a decision to dismiss for delay. See Battaglia v. Maplehurst Correctional Complex, 2009 HRTO 1167. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction in respect of the application.

5I am satisfied that the Application should be served on the respondent and that the respondent should be given an opportunity to address the issues. Based on the Application and the applicant's submissions, it appears that the applicant's allegations may raise Code-related concerns regarding alleged differential treatment and reprisal in the workplace. Further, the concerns alleged in the narrative appear to be within the Code's one-year timeline. In the circumstances, it is not plain and obvious that the Application does not raise matters covered by the Code. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

6While the Application includes a narrative setting out various allegations of harassment, unfair discipline, and issues of workplace accommodation, no specific Code ground was alleged. Accordingly, within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant is directed to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent a detailed statement indicating the specific Code ground(s), if any, that relate to her allegations of unfair treatment and reprisal. If the applicant fails to respond by this deadline, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned.

7This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction in respect of this Application, nor any indication of the merits of the Application.

8The Application, the applicant's detailed statement, copy of this Interim Decision and a Notice of Application will be provided to the respondent and the affected party. The time for filing a Response will run from the date on which the Applicant delivers the detailed statement required in paragraph [6], above.

9I am not seized.