Connie Cowan v. Durham Reporting and Mediation, 2012 HRTO 1841

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Connie Cowan

Applicant

-and-

Durham Reporting and Mediation

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: September 26, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1841

Indexed as: Cowan v. Durham Reporting and Mediation

WRitten submissions

Connie Cowan, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on July 6, 2012, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of record of offences.

2On August 2, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”), on the basis that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s power to decide, because it appeared that the applicant’s allegations did not come within the purview of “record of offences” as defined under the Code. The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOID.

3“Record of offences” is defined in section 10 of the Code as follows:

“record of offences” means a conviction for,

(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or

(b) an offence in respect of any provincial enactment.

4The applicant filed submissions on September 17, 2012. The applicant acknowledges that she has not yet been granted a pardon and anticpates that a pardon will be granted in either August 2013 or 2015.

5An application will be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6Based on the Application and the applicant’s submissions, I am satisfied that the applicant’s allegations do not relate to the Code-protected ground of “record of offences”. It is clear that the applicant’s allegations do not come within the meaning of record of offences; namely, “an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted”.

7In these circumstances, the Application must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

8Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.

9I am not seized of this matter.