HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
John Anderson
Applicant
-and-
Whole Foods Market and Tyron Gross
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Anderson v. Whole Foods Market
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
John Anderson, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This is an Application filed on December 28, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of reprisal. The Tribunal sent the applicant several pieces of correspondence advising that his Application was not complete, to which the applicant responded. The Application has not been sent to the respondents for Response.
2On June 14, 2012, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) in which it stated it appeared that the Application is 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; and
Despite alleging discrimination based on “reprisal or threat of reprisal”, the Application fails to explain how the respondents’ behaviour was related to “reprisal” as defined in section 8 of the Code.
3The applicant was directed to provide written submissions to the Tribunal by July 16, 2012 responding to these issues. The applicant provided written submissions dated July 16, 2012.
analysis
4I have reviewed the Application including the material that the applicant submitted in response to the Tribunal’s correspondence advising that the Application was incomplete as well as those dated July 16, 2012.
5The Application contains a narrative of events resulting in the termination of the applicant’s employment, with the applicant alleging that he was wrongfully dismissed. The applicant references the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of “reprisal”, stating it means “a retaliatory act”, and alleges that he was reprised against by the personal respondent because the applicant would not provide written support of the personal respondent’s leadership application. Because of this, the applicant asserts, the personal respondent “developed and maintained a resentment” towards him, and he cites a number of examples of this resentment.
6In his July 16, 2011 submissions to the Tribunal, the applicant submits that his Application is based on “poisoned atmosphere” in employment and that he addressed the issue of reprisal earlier in the materials that he submitted to the Tribunal. The applicant also provided a three page narrative which essentially sets out the same information as what he had previously been submitted to the Tribunal.
7An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on a 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 social areas and grounds listed in the Code.
8Section 8 of the Code contains a very specific definition of “reprisal” and it provides:
- 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.
9With respect to reprisal, the Tribunal stated in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 23, “Reprisal under s. 8 of the Code must be a reprisal for the assertion of human rights and there must be an intention to reprise for that reason”. See also Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. 31.
10It is clear from reading the Application and the materials that the applicant has submitted to the Tribunal that he disagrees that he should have been terminated from his employment. However, the applicant has not described an act of discrimination related to any ground under the Code. As well, the Application contains no description of reprisal as defined by section 8 of the Code.
11The applicant’s allegations about “reprisal” are in relation to his apparent refusal to provide written support to the personal respondent’s leadership application. Since then, the applicant alleges, the personal respondent has resented him and treated him differently from other employees. The applicant does not allege that his termination or events leading up to it were related to him claiming or attempting to enforce a right under the Code. Further, he has not asserted that he raised a Code concern with the personal respondent, or the corporate respondent, before he was terminated. Finally, the applicant has not asserted that the respondents intended to reprise against him for raising a Code concern. The applicant’s allegations, even if they meet a dictionary definition of “reprisal”, do not meet the Code’s definition of “reprisal”.
12Accordingly, I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application is beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
ORDER
13The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of July, 2012.
“Signed by”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair