Prince v. Waterloo Regional District School Board, 2011 HRTO 892

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Prince

Applicant

-and-

Waterloo Regional District School Board, Rejean Cantin, Eric Edwards, Barry Easter, Ron Paling and Tim Wagner

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: May 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 892

Indexed as: Prince v. Waterloo Regional District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Prince, Applicant ) Self-represented

1This Application which was filed February 17, 2011, pursuant to s. 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 age and reprisal.

2On March 16, 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 respondents.

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 April 15, 2011.

3I have reviewed the Application and the applicant's submissions. The Application and submissions contain a narrative of events related to the applicant's employment, apparently as a janitor (although this is not entirely clear), with the respondent school board. The applicant describes a number of incidents during the period January 2009 to January 2011 which appear to be of concern to the applicant. None of these identified incidents involve alleged discriminatory action by any of the respondents on the basis of age. The applicant's concerns appear to be about unethical and unfair behaviour of the respondents.

4The applicant raises the ground of reprisal; however, he fails to explain how any of the respondents' conduct was related to reprisal. Indeed, when asked in his application to explain why he believes he was reprised against, the applicant responded that he did not see any sign of reprisal at this point "for the reason being I believe they [the respondents] are not aware of any correspondence between myself and the HRTO."

Decision

5An 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. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code.

6Having reviewed the Application and the applicant's submissions, I am of the view that it is plain and obvious that this Application is beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction and accordingly, the Application is dismissed. The applicant has failed to identify an act of discrimination related to age or any other ground under the Code. The applicant has not explained how any of the respondents' actions are related to reprisal.

7The Application is therefore dismissed.