Anunciacao v. Working Women Community Centre, 2012 HRTO 307

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Suely Anunciacao

Applicant

-and-

Working Women Community Centre

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 13, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 307

Indexed as: Anunciacao v. Working Women Community Centre

1The applicant filed this Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant’s narrative, however, does not clearly identify how the respondent subjected her to reprisal or threat of reprisal as that term is defined in the Code.

2On November 28, 2011, the Tribunal sent a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) to the parties asking for their submissions on the issue of its jurisdiction to hear this Application. The parties were directed to file their submissions within three weeks of the date of the CAD.

3The respondent filed its submissions on December 19, 2011. In addition to its submissions on jurisdiction, it also asked the Tribunal to dismiss on the basis that the applicant had signed a Memorandum of Settlement on November 22, 2011, in which she “withdraws and discontinues” this Application, and undertakes to file the necessary forms with the Tribunal asking the Tribunal to close its file.

4On December 20, 2011, the applicant sent in an extension request to file her submissions to the CAD, on the basis that she was seeking to obtain the assistance of counsel. The Tribunal granted an extension until January 6, 2012. On January 3, 2012, counsel for the applicant wrote brief submissions on the circumstances surrounding the signing of the settlement, but made no submissions on the jurisdictional question set out in the CAD.

5Section 8 of the Code, which prohibits reprisals or threat of reprisals, states:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal.

6The Application sets out in detail a series of actions that are alleged to have followed the settlement of a grievance filed on the applicant’s behalf in 2010. There is nothing in her Application that alleges that these actions took place in response to any of the following:

• Claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;

• Instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or

• Refusing to infringe the right of another person.

7Moreover, as pointed out in the CAD, and further asserted by the respondent in its written submissions, none of the allegations in the Application appear to relate to a ground under the Code. The Tribunal does not adjudicate general claims of unfairness or abusive conduct. There must be a nexus between the allegation of unfairness and/or abuse and a ground under the Code. In the absence of such a nexus, no violation of the Code can be found.

8Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application. It is, therefore, not necessary to address the issue of the effect of the November 22, 2011 Memorandum of Settlement. The Application is dismissed.