Gibbons v. York Support Services Network, 2012 HRTO 2142

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Meghan Gibbons

Applicant

-and-

York Support Services Network

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: November 14, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2142 Indexed as: Gibbons v. York Support Services Network

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 29, 2012. The applicant was employed by the respondent as an assessor. Her job was to complete assessments of adults with developmental disabilities looking for government-funded services. After nearly eight months in the position, the respondent terminated her employment. The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her by terminating her when it found out about her record of offences from an earlier employer. However, in her Application she specifies that the offences in question are not in fact convictions, but are charges that are still pending in the criminal justice system.

2On September 14, 2012, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s power to decide. The Application does not describe how the respondent’s conduct was related to discrimination based on the ground of “record of offences”, a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment (see s.10(1) of the Code).

3In the NOID the applicant was directed to provide written submissions responding to the issues raised in the NOID by October 14, 2012. She was advised that if she failed to do so, the Tribunal could decide to dismiss her Application based only on the information before it, or it could consider her failure to provide submissions as an abandonment of her Application. The NOID has not been returned as undeliverable to the Tribunal.

4The applicant has not responded to the NOID and the time for doing so has now passed. In the circumstances the applicant is deemed to have abandoned her Application.

5The Application is dismissed.