Durac v. Catlin Canada and John Saurine, 2012 HRTO 1679

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cristiana Durac

Applicant

• and-

Catlin Canada and John Saurine

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: September 6, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1679

Indexed as: Durac v. Catlin Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Cristiana Durac, Applicant ) Self-represented )

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on May 31, 2012, alleging reprisal with respect to employment. The applicant did not cite any other ground of discrimination.

2The Application has not yet been served on the respondent.

3On July 24, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) indicating that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application because a review of the Application and narrative appear to fail to identify any acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code and also appear to fail to explain how the respondents’ alleged behaviour constitutes a reprisal or threat of reprisal.

4On August 13, 2012, the applicant filed additional details with respect to her Application and submissions in response to the Notice. The applicant indicates that the personal respondent treated her in a disrespectful and unprofessional manner because she is female and of a certain age. The applicant alleges that after the termination of her employment the respondents hired a man to fill her position.

5An 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. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the application.

6I am satisfied that the Application should be served on the respondents and that the respondents 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 based on gender and age and reprisal. The applicant alleges that the personal respondent ridiculed her, spoke to her in a demeaning fashion, unduly criticized her and that she reported her concerns to human resources and management. The applicant alleges that after she reported her concerns, she was criticized even more and isolated in the workplace. In the circumstances, it is not plain and obvious that the Application does not raise matters covered by the Code.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application. This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application, nor any indication of the merits of the Application.

ORDER

8The Tribunal will forward the Application, the Notice, the applicant’s submissions and this Interim Decision to the respondents. The respondents must file a Response within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

9I am not seized.