Suzanne Adams v. Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Cornwall & District, 2012 HRTO 418

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Suzanne Adams

Applicant

-and-

Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Cornwall & District and Amanda Brisson

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 28, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 418

Indexed as: Adams v. Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Cornwall & District

1The applicant filed this Application on October 21, 2011, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal in employment. The Application is based on the allegation that the applicant was fired after she advised that she would be filing a harassment complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (which the applicant refers to as “Bill 168”)

2On January 4, 2012, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the allegations in the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide). The applicant filed written submissions on jurisdiction on January 10, 2012.

JURISDICTION

3Prior to serving an application on the named respondents, the Tribunal will only dismiss an Application where it is plain and obvious that the matters do not fall within its jurisdiction.

4This Application is based entirely on the fact that the personal respondent is alleged to have yelled, threatened and attempted to bully the employees of the organizational respondent, including the applicant, into performing work outside the scope of their normal duties. The applicant alleges that she advised the President of the Board of Directors (who in turn advised the personal respondent) that she would be filing a workplace harassment claim under Bill 168. Shortly thereafter, the applicant states, her employment was terminated even though there had been no warning that there was any issue with her work.

5At no point in the applicant’s allegations in her Application and submissions concerning the respondents, does the applicant refer to any differential treatment on the basis of a ground listed under the Code. The behaviour, which is referred to as “bullying,” appears to be in the nature of a workplace dispute, unrelated to any ground under the Code.

6With respect to the allegation of reprisal, section 8 of the Code 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.

7To successfully make out a claim of reprisal, the applicant must demonstrate that she experienced reprisal for:

• 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 under the Code.

8Given that the applicant has not asserted that the conduct at issue was related to a ground under the Code, her attempts to remedy this conduct cannot be said to be either “claiming” or “enforcing” a right under the Code. With respect to the second criteria, it is clear that the applicant was threatening to (and eventually did) institute proceedings under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but this is entirely distinct from instituting proceedings under the Code. She has not suggested that her job was terminated because she had refused to infringe the right of another person and, in any event, this provision relates to a right under the Code.

9For the above reasons, it is plain and obvious that this Application is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Application is dismissed.