Muqtada Qureshi v. Islamic Foundation of Toronto, 2012 HRTO 2003

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Muqtada Qureshi

Applicant

-and-

Islamic Foundation of Toronto, Javaid Khan, Syed Warsi, Khaleel Khan,

Salah Khan, Syed Quadri and Shakil Akhter

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: October 22, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2003

Indexed as: Qureshi v. Islamic Foundation of Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Muqtada Qureshi, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 20, 2012, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of record of offences, association with a person identified by a Code ground and reprisal.

2In the Application, the applicant raises various concerns regarding his employment with the organizational respondent, including that: he observed problematic practises with respect to money and record-keeping; he was subjected to unfair suspension upon raising his concerns; he was denied opportunities to work and that someone from outside the organization was retained instead; he was pressured into providing personal loans; in August 2011 he was spoken to in abusive language and threatened; and that he was dismissed without any reason after challenging the way money was handled and the manner in which he was being treated. Although the applicant claims that he was being discriminated against, the examples described in the applicant’s narrative appear primarily related to the issue of monetary mismanagement and do not reference any of the Code grounds cited in the Application.

3As a result, on August 30, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because the Application may be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The NOID indicated that it appeared that the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination and/or reprisal allegedly committed by the respondents within the meaning of the Code.

4On September 21, 2012, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID. The applicant specified the reasons why he believes the personal respondents and organizational respondent engaged in discrimination and reprisal related to the Code.

DECISION

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

6“Record of offences” is defined in section 10(1) of the Code as follows:

“[R]ecord 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.

7I find the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction with respect to the ground of “record of offences” because the Application and the applicant’s submissions do not indicate how the alleged circumstances come within the definition of “record of offences” as covered by the Code.

8In Form 1A of the Application and specifically in responding to Questions A13 and 14, the applicant indicated that there was no discrimination in relation to the ground of ethnic origin and that the ground of age was “not applicable”. Nevertheless, in his written submissions the applicant alleges that when he raised concerns about corruption of donation funds, one personal respondent became upset and said “you ‘PAKISTANIS’ trouble makers” and told the applicant to keep his mouth shut or else he would be out of a job. The applicant also alleges that in August 2011 another personal respondent spoke to him in an abusive manner, telling him that he was lucky to be employed and should be retired. The applicant alleges that when he replied that the personal respondent was discriminating against him because of his age and pointed out that another individual was working and getting paid under the table, the personal respondent threatened to kill the applicant. The applicant further alleges that when he protested the fact that he was not able to get extra work hours, another personal respondent informed him that the organization wanted someone younger with computer knowledge.

9Having considered the applicant’s explanation of his allegations, I find that it is not plain and obvious that the Application does not raise matters covered by the Code. As such, without making any findings with respect to the merits of allegations and any potential jurisdictional issues, based on the applicant’s supplementary submissions I am satisfied that it is not “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

10Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application, except with respect to the ground of “record of offences”. The Application, the accompanying documentation, the NOID and the applicant’s submissions will be delivered to the respondents and the respondents will be given an opportunity to file Responses.

11This 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

12The Tribunal orders as follows:

(i) The Application will not proceed with respect to the ground of “record of offences”;

(ii) The Registrar will forward a copy of all materials in the file, together with a Notice of Application, to the respondents; and

(iii) The respondents are required to file their Responses no later than 35 days after the Tribunal sends a copy of this Interim Decision and the accompanying documents.

13I am not seized of this matter.