HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Dmitri Kirdeev Applicant
-and-
City of Mississauga Respondent
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: September 19, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1782 Indexed as: Kirdeev v. Mississauga (City)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Dmitri Kirdeev, Applicant ) Self-represented
1The applicant filed this Application with the Tribunal on June 26, 2012, pursuant to section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of record of offences.
2On July 9, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) the Application because it appeared the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Notice indicated that the Application failed to describe how the respondent’s behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of “record of offences” as defined under section 10 of the Code, that being a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment.
3The Tribunal’s Notice directed the applicant to file written submissions on or before August 7, 2012, with respect to the jurisdictional issue.
4No submissions were received from the applicant in response to the Notice.
5By way of Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated September 7, 2012, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file written clarification of his concerns or else the Application would be treated as abandoned.
6On September 8, 2012, the applicant filed written submissions setting out his allegations that he was harassed, unfairly dismissed and subjected to reprisal, and provided documentation regarding the alleged events, including employment health-related forms and police notes.
7An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is delivered to a respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
8The applicant’s narrative alleges that his employment was terminated on February 16, 2012, shortly after returning to work from long-term disability. The applicant indicates that on February 14, 2012, he served court documents to his former supervisor alleging harassment by the former supervisor. The applicant alleges that the human resources manager of the respondent City reprised against him by terminating his employment and calling the police with accusations that he was mentally ill and dangerous. The applicant alleges that the human resources manager was attempting to cover up the incident of harassment by his former supervisor.
9Based on the information provided with the Application and the applicant’s written submissions, it appears that the Application may raise matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Code. I am satisfied that the Application should be served on the respondent and that the respondent should be given an opportunity to address the issues.
10Accordingly, 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.
11The Tribunal will forward a copy of the Application, the Notice, the CAD, the applicant’s submissions and supporting documentation, as well as a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent. The respondent must file a Response within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of September, 2012.
“Signed by“
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair